Cushing v. Heuston

Citations

• 53 Wash. 379
• 102 P. 29
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1332

Syllabus

<p>Trusts — Trustee ex Maleficio — Yerbal Promise — Evidence— Sufficiency. A trust ex maleficio does not arise from a mere verbal promise by the purchaser of one of several lots to attend to the matter of acquiring the title to abutting tide lands for the benefit of the purchasers of other lots in the same block, made at the same time, where the parties were entire strangers, the promisor had no funds or property in his hands belonging to the others and none was furnished and he did not agree to advance any for the contemplated purchase, and he was not to receive any compensation for the volunteered service, and in acquiring a deed for himself, the grantors of the tide lands were not concerned as to what parties were to be benefited Jjy the purchase; notwithstanding representations that the purchaser was acting for the benefit of himself and neighbors.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Findings. In an equity case tried de novo on appeal, the supreme court is not bound by the findings of the trial court.</p> <p>Trusts — Implied Trusts — Evidence—Sufficiency. An implied trust upon the holder of a legal title to land should not be found on conflicting parol testimony, if there is left any ground of doubt in regard to it.</p>