
    Annie Jaecker, Individually and as Administratrix, Respondent, v. Leon Edward Muller, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York, General Term,
    May, 1897.)
    Trustees — City Court of New York — Jurisdiction.
    The City Court of New York has no jurisdiction over trustees, nor of actions requiring trustees to account, but such actions should be brought in a court of equity.
    
      Appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial.
    In about the year 1876, one Mrs. Jaecker, the plaintiff’s mother, deposited the sum of $300 with her friend Mrs. Muller, .who was the defendant’s mother, to be kept safely for her two infant children, Annie Jaecker and Albert J aecker, and to be paid to them when they became twenty-one years of age.
    Soon after this was done Mrs. Jaecker died, and, about 1881, and before Mrs. Jaecker’s children had become of age, Mrs. Muller died, having previously delivered over the money to her son, the defendant, who had knowledge of the purposes for which it was. held. ' .
    In 1886, Albert Jaecker, one of the beneficiaries, died. In 1893, when the surviving beneficiary, the plaintiff, became of age, she made a demand for this money upon the defendant, who refused to pay it, and this action was accordingly brought against him by the plaintiff, individually and as administratrix of her mother’s estate, to recover the full amount due. •
    Upon the trial it appeared that $150 of this money had been deposited in a hank, and had earned up to 1890 the sum of $93.77 interest, and also that a part of the principal sum had been used by the defendant in his business.
    The judge charged the jury that if they found that the defendant had received this money from his mother to hold for Mrs. Jaecker’s children, he was liable to the plaintiff for the full amount, together with whatever sum the money had earned up to the time the plaintiff became twenty-one years of age, and with legal interest from that time when it became payable and .when "the plaintiff made a demand for it.
    The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $300, and .with $72 interest for the time since the plaintiff became twenty-one, and allowed interest of $93 on the bank deposit of $150, and an equal amount on the remaining $150, making a total of the sum of $558.
    O. W. Beals, for appellant..
    Robert Goeller, for respondent.
   Fitzsimons, J.

The motion made by the defendant’s attorney to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state fact; •sufficient.to constitute a cause of action should have been granted

The complaint and proof of plaintiff herein shows that the plaintiff as a cestui que trust brought this action against the defendant to require him as a trustee to account for the fund in question intrusted to his care.

The complaint and the evidence clearly and conclusively show that no cause of action is either alleged against or proven against the defendant as an individual, and, therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed.

The defendant, according to the .complaint and plaintiff’s 'evidence, was appointed a trustee. . Any person (including the plaintiff) whose right it was to call the defendant to account for his doings as such trustee should have done so in a court of equity.

This court has no jurisdiction over trustees; nor has it jurisdiction in actions requiring trustees to account for their stewardship.

The enforcement of trusts and of the many' rights incident thereto is, of necessity, altogether within the jurisdiction of courts of equity; indeed it is difficult to conceive a case directly involving, as this one does, the administration of a trust of which a court of common law, as this court is, could properly take cognizance.

The enforcement of trusts and trust obligations, the existence of a fiduciary relationship, are. questions which fall naturally within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of equity courts (See 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 271; McCarthy v. Bostwick, 32 N. Y. 57), as we view this matter.

Under the circumstances the plaintiff cannot recover a judgment in this court, and a new trial to her would be useless, and a waste of'time, therefore the judgment must be reversed and the complaint herein dismissed.

Van Wyck, Ch. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed.  