Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/40

 28 FEDEBAIi BBPOBTEB. �The trust was constituted by a deed dated the fifteenth day of December, 1873, which was made between certain parties of the first part, styled "the trustees," certain parties of the second part, called "the committee," and certain parties of the third part, called "the covenantees." �The scheme contemplated subscriptions to raise a fund for the purpose of purchasing bonds of munioipalities within the United States. The bonds were to be purchased by "the committee" named in the deed, and placed in the possession of the banker of the trust by the trustees. Subscribers to the fund received certificates, payable to the bearer, which en- titled the holder to participate in the distribution of the profits and proceeds of the trust investments by a drawing in a mode set out in the deed, which, in some of its featurcs, closely resembled a lottery. The capital of the trust was fixed by the deed at £350,000. The committee of the trust pur- chased from Coler bonds, including those of Phillips county, valued at £217,550 12s. and lOd., for which he was paid in cash £135,000 12g. and lOd., and the remaining £82,555 was paid him in certificates of the trust, which two witnesses testify were, at the time, par or a little under. The trust was not a corporation or joint-stock company or partnership, but a trust formed by deed of settlement for the purpose of secur- ing investments. The trustees were the legal owners of the trust property, and the business of the trust was managed by them and "the committee" oreated by the deed for the bene- fit of the certifieate holders, who were Etrangers to each other, and who entered into no contract between themselves, nor with any trustee on behalf of each other, and were not, there- fore, partners. �It is a question whether this trust was not obnoxious to the provisions of the English companies act, 1862, and illegal. According to the opinion of the master of the rolls in Syke» V. Beadon, Solicitors' Journal, April 12, 1879, p. 464, it was; but in Smith v. Anderson, reported in London Times, July 17, 1880, the court of appeal overrule Sykes v. Beadon. �The question is not material in this case, for in any event the certifieate holders who contributed the money to purchase ��� �