Roberts v. Opp

Citations

• 56 Ill. 34

Syllabus

<p>1. Resulting trust—-when it m’ises. A testator died, having devised his real estate to his widow during her life, and remainder in fee to his two children. This property was sold by the parties in interest, and the proceeds invested in another homestead, the title to which, by consent of the children, was taken in the name of the mother, but neither of the children relinquishing his interest in such proceeds. Subsequently, this new homestead was sold, and the proceeds thereof, together with other funds furnished by one of the children, invested in different pieces of real estate, the title to which, by consent of the children, was also taken in the name of the mother. The latter conveyed a part of this property to one of the children, in consideration of his agreement to support her, and sold the residue to a third person, taking his notes for the purchase money, which came to the hands of her son to whom she had conveyed the other portion: Reid, the investment of the proceeds of the first sale being by consent of the children, and on the fair understanding that their interests should remain as before, in the proportion that each contributed to the several purchases, there was a resulting trust in their favor in respect to the property last purchased.</p> <p>2. Same—subsequent ‘purchasers. The conveyance by the mother to one of the children, who knew all the facts, could not prejudice the rights of the other devisee, and, as between the two children, each was entitled to such share in the land so conveyed as represented his share in the purchase price thereof, and a like interest in the notes received on the sale of the other portion, the purchaser of which, having no notice, took free of the trust.</p>