Love v. Love

Citations

• 72 Kan. 658
• 83 P. 201
• 1905 Kan. LEXIS 390

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice, Supreme Court — Resulting Trust Not Proved— Review of Evidence. In a suit to enforce a resulting trust the court found upon oral testimony that the defendant bought the land in controversy with his own money. This was held conclusive upon review.</p> <p>2. Conveyances — “Administrator’’-—Descriptio Personse. Where land was conveyed to “Alexander Love, administrator,” it was held that the word “administrator” was merely descriptive of the person.</p> <p>3. Title and Ownership — Resulting Trusty — Evidence—Estoppel. In a suit to enforce a resulting trust it was found that the defendant had in an action brought by a stranger pleaded the existence of such trust, and that he had been appointed guardian of the beneficiaries and as such had sold a part of the property involved. It was held that a prima facie case was established against the defendant, but that he was not estopped from showing that he was the absolute owner of the property.</p> <p>4. Guardian and Ward — Trust Fund — Neglect to Sue — Payment — Presumption. Where it was alleged that a guardian had, ten years before suit was begun, received funds from the sale of his ward’s land, and during all that time the plaintiff might have sued therefor but did not, it was held that, in the absence of proof of non-payment, it would be inferred that payment had been duly made.</p>