The opinion of the court was delivered by: MASTERSON
Plaintiff, Harry E. Wolff, initiated this suit September 11, 1964 to hold the defendants to account for money and property allegedly taken by defendant, Henry Calla, in 1958 from the estate of one Thomas P. Jose, either before or after Mr. Jose's death on September 29th of that year. Federal jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship.
The jury found that the defendant had received money and property from the late Thomas P. Jose amounting to $2,186.99, that this property had been received by Mr. Calla in trust for Joseph Jose, Thomas's surviving brother, that Mr. Calla unjustifiably had refused to pay the trust fund to the beneficiary, and that the defendant was individually liable for plaintiff's counsel fees. The jury found that the defendant was not liable for penal damages.
On January 26, 1968, the plaintiff filed motions to enter judgment on the verdict and to amend the complaint to include a claim for counsel fees, and, on January 28th the defendant filed a motion for Judgment N.O.V. This Court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend and entered judgment on the verdict on February 2, 1968. Currently before the Court are the defendant's motion for Judgment N.O.V. and an additional motion by the plaintiff to include counsel fees incurred after the jury verdict. For reasons discussed below both of these motions must be denied.
The defendant has based his motion for Judgment N.O.V. upon four separate contentions. He contends first that the verdict must be set aside because, although the action was commenced as a "trespass" action on the law side of the court, the issues ultimately decided were equitable in nature and hence the factual questions related to these issues were not proper questions for jury deliberation.
This contention clearly must be rejected in view of the fact that one of the most important objectives served by adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was the abolition of the formal distinction between law and equity:
"Under the liberal rules of the reformed procedure, a plaintiff is entitled to recover, not on the basis of * * * his theory of damages, but on the basis of the facts as to damages shown in the record. * * * Differences in the forms of claims being abolished, the plaintiff should be denied relief only when, under the facts proved, he is entitled to none." Nester v. Western Union Tel. Co., 25 F. Supp. 478 (S.D.Cal., 1938); Lance Inc. v. Ginsburg, 210 F. Supp. 272 (E.D.Pa., 1962).
Thus, under the Federal Rules remedies which formerly were differentiated as legal or equitable, are both available to litigants in any federal civil action. See, New England Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Barnett, 39 F. Supp. 761, 763 (S.D.Ala., 1941). Similarly, a trial court in any federal civil action is permitted to fashion any appropriate relief whether this involves the adoption of legal and/or of equitable remedies. See, Hurwitz v. Hurwitz, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 136 F.2d 796, 148 A.L.R. 226 (1943).
The facts of this case uniquely illustrate the wisdom of abolishing the law/equity distinction. As the defendant accurately contends, the plaintiff initially framed this action as one in trespass on the theory that the defendant had intermeddled with Mr. Jose's assets and thus had become a trustee ex maleficio. During the course of the trial it became clear that the defendant in fact had received a sum of money from the decedent during the latter's lifetime and that the primary issue in the case was therefore equitable rather than legal in nature, i.e. whether or not the defendant was a trustee of these assets under an intervivos trust. To bar plaintiff's recovery because he did not bring an action in equity for an accounting, however, would be to exalt form over substance. The Federal Rules clearly prohibit this Court from reaching such a result.
The defendant next contends that there was no evidence presented at trial upon which a jury reasonably could decide that there was in fact a parol trust. As noted supra, f.n. 1., the Court has concluded that there was sufficient evidence at trial to support this finding. In reaching this conclusion the Court was guided by the discussion of the law in Keller v. Keller, 351 Pa. 461, 464-465, 41 A.2d 547, 548-549 (1945):
"A trust in personal property may be established by parol evidence * * * (while) no particular form of words or conduct is necessary for the creation of a trust, language or conduct and a manifestation of an intention to create the same must be proven by evidence which is sufficiently clear, precise and unambiguous * * *. In reviewing the evidence to determine the existence of a trust the situation of the settlor and the beneficiary, financial or otherwise, their relation to each other as well as the purpose for which the trust was created, and the circumstances under which it is to be adminstered must be given due consideration. All the evidence and surrounding circumstances must be considered as an entirety."
In Keller the court held that the defendant's statement, "* * * your Dad gave me $10,000.00 for you, but I don't have to give it to you if I don't want to * * *" was sufficient proof of the existence of a parol trust. The circumstances surrounding the transfer of money from the decedent to the defendant require a similar conclusion in this case.
Thirdly, the defendant argues that this court erred in permitting the plaintiff to amend his complaint during trial to add a claim for counsel fees. He contends that until the time when the plaintiff made this motion he was unaware of the likelihood of this claim and that therefore he was prejudiced when the court allowed the amendment.
It is clear that a district court has wide discretion in permitting amendments to pleadings, and is required to allow amendments freely. See, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962), and generally Canister Co. v. Leahy, 191 F.2d 255 (C.A. 3, 1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 893, 72 S. Ct. 201, 96 L. Ed. 669. Accordingly, amendments frequently are permitted at trial in ...