McConville v. Ingham

Citations

• 268 Pa. 507
• 112 A. 85
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 728

Syllabus

<p>Gift — Evidence—Burden of proof — Endorsement of check — Presumption — Weakness of alleged donor.</p> <p>1. The burden of proving that a gift was made, is upon the one who alleges it.</p> <p>2. The endorsement of a check to one in absolute form raises a presumption of a gift.</p> <p>3. If the relations between a donor and donee are such that because ,of weakness, dependence or trust justifiably reposed, unfair advantage is rendered probable, the transaction is presumed void, and the burden of proof is upon the donee to show that all was fair, open, voluntary and well understood.</p> <p>4. Where an unnamed third party undertakes to prove by parol that he was the person intended to be benefited by a gift, the evidence must be clear, explicit and convincing, not only as to the existence of the trust but as to its terms and conditions.</p> <p>5. As between a donor and donee, however, this rule is not applicable when the question to be determined is whether or not the gift was unfairly obtained.</p> <p>Appeals — Equity—Findings of fact — Review—Evidence—Pleading — Answer—Remedy at law — Question not put down for decision ‘in limine — Act of June 7, 1907, P. L. kkO.</p> <p>6. Findings of fact based on adequate evidence will not be reversed by the appellate courts except for plain mistake.</p> <p>7. If upon examination of the record it appears that plain mistake exists because facts have been found without proof, or material facts established by the proofs have not been found, it is the duty of the appellate courts to find the real facts and to enter the proper decree.</p> <p>8. If an answer avers that there is an adequate remedy at law, but this question is not put down for a decision in limine before a hearing of the case upon the merits, as required by the Act of June 7, 1907, P. L. 440, and is not raised by a point at the trial, or argued in the court below or the appellate court, it will not be considered on appeal.</p>