Russ v. Mebius

Citations

• 16 Cal. 350

Syllabus

<p>Where a boh conveys real estate to his father—the only consideration being a verbal agreement by the father to make a will and devise to the son certain property, and the father dies without having complied with the agreement— the agreement is void, the conveyance is executed without consideration, express or implied, and a trust results in favor of plaintiff by implication of law, and he may set aside the conveyance and recover the property—it being shown that the transaction was not a gift.</p> <p>If, in such case, the conveyance did not express the consideration for which it was given, but acknowledged the payment of a nominal consideration in money, parol evidence would be inadmissible to establish the trust in favor of the son.</p> <p>The doctrine of resulting uses and trusts is founded upon mere implication of law, and, generally, this implication cannot be indulged in favor of the grantor, where it is inconsistent with the presumptions arising from the deed. Unless there be evidence of fraud or mistake, the recitals in a deed are conclusive upon the grantee, and no resulting trust can be raised in his favor in opposition to the express terms of the conveyance.</p> <p>Ho implication of trust arises upon a purchase of property by a parent in the name of his child; as is the case when the purchase money is paid by one person, and the conveyance taken in the name of a stranger. Prima facie, such purchase is regarded as an advancement.</p>