Olinger v. Shultz

Citations

• 183 Pa. 469
• 38 A. 1024
• 1898 Pa. LEXIS 1066

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Trusts and trustees — Resulting trust — Husband and wife — Evidence.</p> <p>Wliere real estate standing in the name of a husband is claimed by the wife as having been bought with her money, and as having been placed in the name of the husband without her knowledge or consent, the evidence to establish the resulting trust must be clear, precise, convincing and satisfactory, not to the jury only, but also to tire court as a chancellor sitting and reviewing the testimony; and if the evidence fails to satisfy the mind and conscience of the court it must be withdrawn from the jury.</p> <p>In an action of ejectment against a wife to recover land sold at a sheriff’s sale as the property of her husband it appeared that the plaintiff, at the time of the sale, had full knowledge of the wife’s claim. The evidence showed that the property had been bought for the wife by her father, and that he had paid all of the down money, which was nearly one third of the entire consideration, and that all the subsequent payments had been made with money of the wife and proceeds derived from the land. The evidence showed that the husband’s name had been inserted in the deed by mistake or fraud, without the wife’s knowledge or consent, and that as soon as she discovered that the title was in the husband, she demanded a deed from him. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to establish a resulting trust in favor of the wife.</p> <p>Statute of limitations — Resulting trust — Husband and wife.</p> <p>Where land purchased with the money of a wife has been placed by mistake in the name of the husband, the statute of limitations does not begin to run against the resulting trust in favor of the wife, until she discovers the mistake.</p>