Waters and Water Courses. Public Water Supply. Water Company. Payment of Disputed Bill for Water. Hatch v. Consumers Co. Ltd., 104 Pac. 670 (Idaho)

1910 The Yale law journal  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT CASES RECENT CASES RECENT CASES is not liable on these facts, on the ground that the trust is created by the agreement of agency, and so is within that section of the statute of frauds requiring declarations of trust in lands to be in writing. Burden v. Sheridan, 33 Iowa 425; Nestal v. Schmidt, 29 N. J. Eq. 458. The ruling of the first case, that the trust is not within the statute, seems to be based on the better reasoning, in that agency, though created by an agreement, is properly a relation, or status, which, for a particular purpose, is fiduciary, and an abuse by the agent of this fiduciary relation is a fraud on his principal, and renders him liable for the proceeds of his wrongful act as a constructive trustee; and so this trust really results by operation of law. and so is not within the statute of frauds. Winn v. Dillon, 27 Miss. 494. There is even greater reason, in the case under discussion, for the holding that the trust is not within the statute, for, by means of the verbal agreement, the purchaser was able to obtain the property at a price below its value. Under practically the same facts the same was held in Ryan v. Dox, 34 N. Y. 307, and in McNeil v. Gates, 41 Ark. 264; and this seems to be
doi:10.2307/784831 fatcat:nxkj2fjoxjd7tpckbh55toukpq