Moore v. Jordan

Citations

• 65 Miss. 229

Syllabus

<p>1. Trust. Not resulting from voluntary conveyance, when.</p> <p>No implied trust can result in favor of a grantor from a deed in which a pecuniary, though nominal, consideration' is stated, the habendum of which declares a use to the grantees, who are children of the grantor, and which contains a covenant of warranty.</p> <p>2. Voluntary Conveyance. Suit to cancel. Fraud. Trust relation. Case m judgment.</p> <p>J. came into possession of an estate which was liable to the State on a defaulting officer’s bond. The administrator of such estate, in order to make a more favorable settlement with the State, or else to compel the co-sureties to pro rate the liability on the bond, induced J. to convey this property to his (the administrator’s) wife and to M., both daughters of J., the administrator promising that they would subsequently reconvey to J. M. took no part in the scheme, except to.receive the conveyance. After-wards the wife of the administrator did reconvey, hut M. refused so to do.. J. filed a hill asking that her conveyance to M. be cancelled. Held., that J. was not entitled to the relief asked, either upon the ground that the conveyance was procured by fraud or imposition practiced upon the-grantor, or that the conveyance was made at the instance of one occupy, ing a trust relation and the grantees are volunteers. There was no fraud on the part of M. in securing the conveyance; and M., though a volunteer, is not one claiming through the administrator, at whose instance the-conveyance was made, nor was the scheme concocted for the administrartor’s benefit.</p>