Knecht v. Reichard

Citations

• 60 Pa. Super. 273
• 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 181

Syllabus

<p>Deeds — Revocation—Trusts and trustees — Resulting trust — Hus~band and wife.</p> <p>The evidence to establish a resulting trust must be clear, precise, convincing and satisfactory. It is not enough that it satisfies the jury. It must- also satisfy the mind and conscience of the court as a chancellor sitting and reviewing the testimony and if the evidence fails to satisfy in this respect, the evidence must be withdrawn from the jury.</p> <p>In-a'proceeding'by a purchaser of real estate at a sheriff’s sale to recover possession Under the Act of April 20, 1905,'P. L. 239, the person in possession who was the husband of the defendant in the execution, prayed-, a jury trial, and- at the trial testified that -the property had been bought with his own money, but that he was induced by the nagging, of his wife to put the property in her name so “that she should have a home if anything should happen to him,” •and that they might, as they thought, evade the payment of the collateral inheritance tax. He offered no testimony however, to show any understanding that the deed should not convey the absolute title to the wife, or that there were any conditions or trust imposed upon her in the title acquired by her. It appeared that the deed was delivered to the husband and that he retained it until his wife deserted him and took it, with her. It also appeared that he had put the deed on record. Held, (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a resulting trust in favor of the husband; (2) that the husband after having secured a jury trial could not, after decision adverse to him, claim that he was not compelled to submit to a trial under the act.</p>