Maxwell v. Maxwell

Citations

• 109 Ill. 588

Syllabus

<p>1. Advancement—when presumed from the relations of the parties. The general rule is, that a purchase of land by a parent in the name of a child, or by a husband in the name of his wife, will be presumed to be an advancement, and not a trust.</p> <p>2. Same—presumption may be rebutted. But any antecedent or contemporaneous acts or facts may be received to rebut or support this presumption; and any acts or facts so soon after the purchase as to be fairly considered a part of the transaction, may be received for the same purpose.</p> <p>3. Same—sufficiency of facts to rebut presumption and raise a resulting trust. In 1842 a husband purchased a half section of land from the United States, and had the patent issued to his wife. They lived together and occupied the same as their homestead until in 1881, when the wife died testate, having devised other lands, but not this tract. The husband filed his bill against her heirs to enforce an alleged resulting trust arising from these facts, and from the fact that he paid all the purchase money, and expended $1500 in improving the premises, and had all the time been treated as the owner, and had paid all the taxes thereon; but it was held that these facts were not sufficient to overcome the presumption of law that the purchase was an advancement to her, and that he having a life estate in the land as tenant by the curtesy, and having the exclusive use of the same, it was his duty to pay the taxes thereon, and that his improvements and possession, as well as payment of taxes, would be presumed to have been under his life estate. The court attached no significance to the fact that the wife failed to dispose of this tract in her will.</p>