Morgan v. Murton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““But if there are two or more trustees or two or more cestuis, a diversity arises. The two or more trustees hold their interest (generally legal) as joint tenants. The title is vested in a group as a unit; while the two or more cestuis hold their equitable interests as tenants in common in almost all cases. This slight difference in the character of legal and equitable interests may justify the refusal to apply merger except in the instance of a single person as sole trustee and sole cestui. Thus, even if A and B hold a legal fee as trustees for A and B who have the complete equitable interest, the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common may be ample ground for leaving the trust intact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mesce v. Gradone

2. “b. On the other hand, there can be a trust where there are several beneficiaries who are also the trustees. In such a case each of the beneficiaries has an equitable interest which is separate from the legal interest held by the whole group. As trustees they hold the legal title as joint tenants , and ordinarily they hold the beneficial interests as tenants in common . Also, in sec. 115 (4), we find the converse statement: "If there are several trustees of a trust, the trustees may be the beneficiaries of the trust.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blades v. . R. R.

3. “if the legal and equitable interests happen to meet in the same person, the equitable is forever absorbed in the legal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blades v. . R. R.