Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittrust

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutemotiontrustcorporation

Related Cases

Mason v. Pelkes, 57 Idaho 10, 59 P.2d 1087

Facts

Katherine Mason and her husband filed a lawsuit against John Pelkes and others to assert that 15,299 shares of Sunshine Mining Company stock were held in trust for Katherine by Pelkes. The Masons claimed that Pelkes transferred the stock to others without consideration and in violation of the trust. The mining company was served but failed to appear, leading to a default judgment against it. The court granted a decree that awarded Katherine Mason a portion of the stock and the dividends accrued since the lawsuit began.

The mining company is a Washington corporation which had conformed to the laws of Idaho entitling it to transact business here. I.C.A. § 29-502 requires such a corporation to designate an agent in the county in which is situated its principal place of business in Idaho, upon whom process issued by authority of or under any law of this state may be served.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the stock was held in trust for Katherine Mason and whether the transfers made by Pelkes were fraudulent.

The mining company contends the clerk was without jurisdiction to enter the default because the sheriff's return, on file when it was entered, failed to show service of the summons on it.

Rule

The court applied principles of trust law and the requirements for establishing a valid trust, including the necessity of intent, delivery, and acceptance.

Our statute (section 5-905) providing for setting aside defaults does not contemplate that such relief be granted to a defendant who has knowingly and intentionally failed to appear and answer within the time prescribed by law, and who has thereafter changed his mind because of changing circumstances.

Analysis

The court found that Pelkes had indeed held the stock in trust for Katherine Mason and that the subsequent transfers were made without her consent and in violation of the trust. The evidence presented showed that Pelkes had acknowledged Katherine's ownership of the stock and had acted contrary to the terms of the trust by transferring the stock to others.

The relief sought against the mining company, shown by the prayer of the complaint, is that it be restrained and enjoined, pending a final determination of the suit, from permitting a transfer of the shares of stock involved and from paying dividends thereon, and that it show cause why it should not be so restrained and enjoined; that it, together with other defendants, account to plaintiffs for any and all dividends which had been paid on the stock in controversy.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decree that granted Katherine Mason a portion of the stock and the dividends, ruling that the mining company was to issue the appropriate certificates and pay the accrued dividends.

The order denying the motion to set aside the default and to permit the mining company to file an answer and cross-complaint is affirmed.

Who won?

Katherine Mason prevailed in the case because the court found that the stock was held in trust for her and that the transfers made by Pelkes were fraudulent.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079, 160 A.L.R. 1231

Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2105, 115 L.Ed.2d 1, 59 USLW 4587

Diehl v. Ogorewac, 836 F.Supp. 88

Madanes v. Madanes, 199 F.R.D. 135

Gushi Bros. Co. v. Bank of Guam, 28 F.3d 1535