Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 Wash. 389

Ritchie v. Trumbull

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 1916

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1916-01-28

<p>Parties — Plaintiffs —■ Trustee of Express Trust — Quieting Title. A trustee of an express trust may maintain an action to quiet 'title in Ms own name without joining the cestui que trust.</p> <p>Quieting Title — Parties—Trustee of Express Trust — Identity of Cestue Que Trust. In an action to quiet title, brought by a trustee of an express trust against parties claiming through his grantor, the identity of the cestuis que trustent is immaterial, as long as the grantor was not the beneficiary of the trust.</p> <p>Courts — Probate Courts — Jurisdiction—Estate Held in Trust— Conveyances. The probate court has jurisdiction to authorize the administratrix to convey property held in trust by the decedent, title to which was disclaimed by the estate.</p> <p>Corporations — Contracts—Representation—Conveyance to Officers — Title. Where an insolvent railroad company conveyed tide lands, held under contract of purchase from the state, to its trustees, under an agreement that they should pay the installments falling due, which the company could not pay, and should hold the land, unless the company repurchased the same within three years, which it failed to do, the title vested in the trustees, as against one succeeding to all the other interests of the company with full notice of the prior conveyance.</p> <p>Chadwick, J., dissents.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1916-01-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1941

5 state decisions

201916192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Chadwick, J.

¶1(dissenting) — The equitable title to the land was in the railroad company and passed under the execution sale to appellants. The railroad company could have asserted its right at any time. The deed to respondent and the powers of attorney gave him no interest, for the parties had no personal interest to convey or protect. Craig was trustee for the railroad company; not for the other parties. They were all trustees in equity for the railroad company, and not cestuis que trustent, as is held by the majority.

¶2For these reasons, I dissent.

/89/wash/389 · .json · Public domain