William Machir and Mary P. Machir His Wife, and Others v. Charles Burroughs
Ohio Supreme Court
14 Ohio St. 519 (1863)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
In 1844, legal title to a house in Dayton, Ohio, became vested in Horace Pease and Perry Pease (collectively, the trustees) in trust for the proper use and benefit of Mary P. Machir (defendant), who was the equitable owner of the premises. The trust instrument did not restrict Mary’s power over the trust estate. Charles Burroughs (plaintiff) furnished lumber and materials for improvements to the house under a contract with Mary and her husband, William Machir, without the knowledge or consent of the trustees. After the Machirs failed to pay Burroughs, he perfected a mechanic’s lien on the property and commenced an action against the Machirs and the trustees of the trust to enforce the lien. The trial court entered an order against William that stated that if the debt remained unpaid for 20 days past the close of the court’s term, a commissioner of the court was directed to lease the premises until sufficient rents were collected to satisfy the judgment in favor of Burroughs. The Machirs appealed, arguing that the property was held in trust for Mary and that neither she nor her husband could lawfully encumber it.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brinkerhoff, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
