Nordholt

The issues in these two actions were the same, and the actions were consolidated and tried together by the lower court on the same evidence. The court found for respondent on all the issues, and rendered judgment accordingly. The appeals are from the final judgment, and from an order denying motion for new trial.

It appears by the pleadings that the parties are brothers, and that on November 17, 1886, their mother conveyed to the respondent, William, by deed absolute on its face, expressing a nominal consideration of one dollar, an undivided fourth part of certain real property situate in the city and county of Los Angeles; that appellant, John, claimed that this conveyance was in trust for him, and demanded of William a conveyance of the legal title; that on February 10, 1887, William, who was then a minor over the age of eighteen years, conveyed to John by a.bargain and sale deed, expressing a nominal consideration of one dollar, the same undivided fourth of the property; that this conveyance was claimed by appellant, John, to have been made in execution of the alleged trust. The respondent denies the trust, and seeks to avoid his deed of February 10th to John, on the ground…

I concur in the foregoing opinion, but go further. I think it would make no difference if the duress were pleaded in the fullest manner. The deed of the respondent can no more be avoided on the ground of duress than it can on the ground of minority. A court of equity will not lend its assistance to a man to set aside, on the ground of duress, an execution of a valid trust. That would be to assist a fraud.

This question fairly arises, and if it be not disposed of now, the case will probably come back again.

The Court. — For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are reversed, and the causes remanded for a new trial.

Hearing in Bank denied.