Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/101

 que trust the latter has an action at law against the trustee for damages commensurate with the value of the property so wrongfully sold; citing Mercier v. Hemme, 50 Cal. 607; Smith et al. v. Frost, 70 N. Y., 69; May v. Le Claire, 11 Wall 217; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 653. If a trustee does a wrongful act with reference to the trust property he consents to be treated as a trespasser or a debtor, at the election of his cestui que trust. Gunther v. James, 9 Cal. 644.

If a trustee disposes of trust property he may be sued in damages; 31 Cal. 24.

Where the grantee has wrongfully conveyed the property, the grantor may claim the proceeds of the sale or the value of the land at the time when the grantor’s right to have it restored to him is established. Mecham v. Forrester, 52 N. Y., 277; Enos v. Sutherland, 11 Mich. 538; and an action at law may be maintained for money had and received. Van Dusen v. Worrell, 4 Abb. Ct. of App. 473; Jones on Mort., vol. 1, §341. Where fraud is charged against the trustee courts of law and equity have concurrent jurisdiction. Snell’s Prin. of Eq., 384; Flint & P. M. Ry. Co. v. Gorden, 41 Mich. 420; Lewis v. Cocks, 23 Wall. 466; Allen v. Waldo, 47 Mich. 516; Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, 44.

The facts will be best understood from a summary of the pleadings. The complaint states that on March 20, 1885, plaintiff was the owner of a certain quarter section of land in Cass county which was free from incumbrance except two mortgages in favor of the Northwestern Trust Company for $1,100; that on that date plaintiff was arrested on a criminal charge, and bail for his appearance before the examining magistrate was fixed at $500; that defendant agreed with plaintiff that, if plaintiff would execute to defendant a warranty deed of his said land, he (defendant) would furnish said bail, and, upon plaintiff's appearance in compliance with said bail-bond, defendant would reconvey said land to plaintiff; that plaintiff relied upon such agreement, and executed to defendant a warranty deed of said premises, but for no other consideration, and upon no other condition, than the foregoing; that defendant did furnish such bail, and plaintiff duly appeared and exonerated the