Mathis v. Stufflebeam

Citations

• 94 Ill. 481

Syllabus

<p>1. Resulting trust—when it arises. Where land is purchased with the money of one person, and the deed taken in the name of another, a trust results by operation of law in favor of the person whose money is used.</p> <p>2. In this case, one of two joint defendants in execution purchased land at the execution sale, paid the amount of his bid, and received from the officer a certificate of purchase. Under a misapprehension as to his right to become a purchaser at the sale, he surrendered bis certificate of purchase to the officer and procured another to be issued to a third person, but retaining it in his own'hands until the time of redemption expired. He then, under some agreement not involving the payment of the money, delivered this second certificate of purchase to the person in whose name it was issued, who thereupon assigned it to his wife, and she at. once took a sheriff’s deed in her own name. The wife had knowledge of all the facts, and was a mere volunteer. It was held, a resulting trust would arise in favor of the person who paid the money at the execution sale.</p> <p>3. The mere fact that the purchaser at the execution sale procured the second certificate of purchase to be issued to a third person, could in nowise operate to bar his rights in the premises. That act was not in contravention of any rule of public policy so as to prevent a resulting trust from arising in his favor.</p> <p>4. Nor would the fact that the person so alleging the resulting trust offered to accept a settlement in respect to the subject of the controversy, in any way militate against his claim.</p> <p>5. Purchaser—who may become a purchaser at an execution sale. One of two . defendants in an execution may properly become a purchaser at the execution sale of the land of his co-defendant;—and especially would this be the case where the purchaser was surety for his co-defendant in respect of the debt for which the judgment upon which the execution issued was rendered.</p>