Buchanan v. Hart
Buchanan v. Hart
Opinion of the Court
—Counsel for plaintiffs in error concede the only point in the case, upon the axiomatic principle that a trust shall never fail for want of a trustee. (Story’s Eq. Jur.) If, in the execution of a trust, the trustee should invade the homestead rights of plaintiffs in error, his remedy would be by a direct proceeding to restrain the trustee. We cannot presume (for it nowhere appears) that the plaintiffs in error now occupy as a homestead the land embraced in the trust deed. This must appear by averments and proof, to raise the issue, whether or not a married woman can legally divest herself of the homestead by deed of trust.
It is assigned as error that the costs of suit were taxed against the plaintiffs in error. We are of opinion that this was error, but not such a one as to justify a reversal.
The judgment is reformed to the extent of taxing the costs to the defendant in error, to be paid out of the trust fund, and in all else it is
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- F. M. Buchanan et ux. v. Simeon Hart
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Where the trustee to sell to pay a mortgaged debt died, the court had the power to appoint a successor, upon the familiar principle that a trust shall not fail for want of a trustee. Whether the wife is bound by a deed of trust, so as to authorize a forced sale of the homestead, will only be decided when the issue is necessarily presented. When the trustee dies, and the creditor goes into equity for the appointment of a successor, the costs are taxable against the plaintiff, to come out of the trust fund, not to the defendant.