If the trustee's insolvency or other cause prevents one who has contracted with a trustee with reference to the trust business from obtaining adequate relief by an action at law against the trustee, a bill in equity may be maintained to subject the assets of the trust to the claim.94 This right is v. Burke, 151 Cal. 616, 91 Pac. 504; Philip Carey Co. v. Pingree, 223 Mass. 352, 111 N. E. 867; Feldman v. Preston, 194 Mich. 352,160 N. W. 655; Ogden Ry. Co. v. Wright, 31 Ore. 150, 49 Pac. 975; Roger Williams Nat. Bank v. Groton Mfg. Co., 16 R. I. 504, 17 Atl. 170; Mclutyre v. Williamson, 72 Vt. 183, 47 Atl. 786. But see contra, Printup v. Trammel, 25 Ga. 240. Cf. Stevenson v. Polk, 71 la. 278,32 N. W. 340. See further, supra, Sec. 299. So an indorsement by a trustee of negotiable paper payable to him as such binds him personally. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Looney, 99 Tenn. 278, 42 S. W. 149, 38 L. R. A. 837, 63 Am. St. Rep. 830.
90Thayer v. Wendell, 1 Gall. 37; Glenn v. Allison, 58 Md. 527; Shoe A Leather Nat. Bank v. Dix, 123 Mass. 148, 25 Am. Rep. 49; Packard v. Kingman, 109 Mich. 497, 67 N. W. 551;
Brackett v. Ostrandar, 126 N. Y. App. Div. 529, 110 N. Y. 8. 779.
91 See infra, Sec. 1144. In Megowan v. Peterson, 173 N. Y. 1, 65 N. E. 738; Kerby v. Ruegamer, 107 N. Y. App. D. 491, 95 N. Y. S. 408, the trustees were held not personally liable to payees who knew that the notes were intended to be made on behalf of a certain trust estate though the identity of the estate was not disclosed on the instrument. This is, however, reformation at law. See infra, Sec. 1599.
92Tuttle v. First Nat. Bank, 187 Mass. 533, 73 N. E. 560, 105 Am. St. 420; Dunham v. Blood, 207 Mass. 512, 93 N. E. 804; McGovern v. Bennett, 146 Mich. 558, 109 N. W. 1055.
93 Richmond v. Ogden St. Ry. Co., 44 Ore. 48, 74 Pac 333. See also supra, n. 91.
94"In re Frith, (1902] 1 Ch. 342; Wylly v. Collins, 9 Ga. 223; Gaudy v.
not dependent on any power the trustee may or may not have under the terms of the trust, to impose a charge upon the trust property. It is sufficient that the trustee was authorized by the terms of the trust to incur such an obligation as that in question. The equity of the creditor thereupon arises by operation of law, either by virtue of a right of subrogation to have applied to the payment of the claim the trustee's right against the trust estate as an asset of the trustee; or by virtue of a broader and less exactly defined equity that the transaction having been entered upon for the benefit of the trust estate, the estate should be answerable. On either view if the powers conferred by the trust have been exceeded and the trust estate has not been unjustly enriched by means of the contract, the creditor's sole recourse is to the personal liability of the trustee.95 But the result reached under the two theories differs where because of the trustee's unfaithful administration of the trust there is no balance due from the trust estate to the trustee on an accounting. On the theory of subrogation, which is that generally adopted, the creditor can get no relief.96 But if the basis of relief is that the contract was made on behalf of the trust estate, and that though not recognized as a legal entity, the estate is none the less the real principal in the transaction, and ought, therefore, equitably to pay, a default on the part of the trustee would not impair the creditor's right to reach the estate.97 It must be remembered that what is nominally a trust may be in reality and in legal effect an unincorporated association or partnership, the so-called trustees being more properly designated as agents.98
Babbitt, 66 Ga. 640; Jackson v Pool, 73 Ga. 801; Mason v. Pomeroy, 151 Mass. 164, 24 N. E. 202, 7 L, R. A. 771; King v. Stowell, 211 Mass. 246, 250, 98 N. E. 91; Norton v. Phelps, 54 Miss. 467; Bushong v. Taylor, 82 Mo. 260; Ferrra v. Myrick, 41 N. Y. 315; Wadsworth v. Arnold, 24 R. I. 32, 51 Atl. 1041; Cater v. Evdeigh, 4 Desaus. 19, 6 Am. Dec. 596; Montgomery v. Eveleigh, 1 McCord Ch. 267; Magwood p. Johnson, 1 Hill's Ch. 223; Tennant v. Stoney, 1 Rich. Eq. 222, 243, 44 Am. Deo. 213; Owens v. Mitchell, 38 Tex. 5S8. But see Worrell v, Harford, 8 Ves. Jr. 4, 8; Mulhall v. Williams, 32 Ala. 489, and Alabama in Etowah Mining
Co. v. Wills Valley Mining Co., 143 Ala. 623, 39 So. 336.
95 In re Richardson,  2 K. B. 705; Tuttle v. First Nat. Bank, 1S7 Mass. 533, 73 N. E. 560; Dunham v. Blood, 207 Mass. 512, 93 N. E. 804; King v. Stowell, 211 Mass. 246, 250, 98 N. E. 91. See also Jessup v. Smith, 170 N. Y. App. D. 605, 156 N. Y. S. 553.
96In re Johnson, 15 Ch. D. 548; Strickland v. Symons, 26 Ch. D. 245; In re Erans, 34 Ch. D. 597; In re Gorton, 40 Ch. D. 536; In re British Power Ac. Co.,  2 Ch. 470; In re Morris, 23 L. R. Ir. 333; Hewitt v. Phelps, 105 U. S. 393, 26 L. Ed. 1072; Dant-rier v. Mclnnia, 151 Ala. 293, 44 So. 193, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 297, 125 Am.