Johns v. Williams & Black
Johns v. Williams & Black
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
There are two grounds, either of which is sufficient to maintain the jurisdiction of the chancery court and entitle the complainants to relief.
The first is, that complainants are equitable and not legal owners of the land and are seeking the cancellation of a lease made by the trustee in consideration, in part of her private debt to the lessees, and the proper enforcement of the trusts upon which the land is held for them; the other is, that complainants are infants .and for that reason are entitled to invoke the intervention of the court of equity to charge, as baliff or trustee, the recipient of the rents and profits of their lands, even if their title was legal instead of equitable. Carmichael v. Hunter, 4 How. 308; Wathen v. Glass, 54 Miss. 382.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- C. W. Johns v. Williams & Black
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery. Jwi-isdictioré Enforcement of trust. The chancery court has jurisdiction of a suit by equitable owners of land to cancel a lease made by their trustee in consideration in part of the latter’s private debt to the lessee, and for the enforcement of the trust upon which the land is held for them. 2. Infants may Follow Trust Funds. ' Infant owners of land, whether by legal or equitable title, may sue in the chancery court to charge as trustee one who has received the rents and profits of their lands.