Seif v. Muse

Citations

• 70 Pa. Super. 487
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 284

Syllabus

<p>Trusts and trustees — Trust ex maleficio — Deed—Unrecorded deed —Declarations of deceased grantor — Evidence—Frwud.</p> <p>Where a father in 1894 executes and delivers a deed of land to his son, and the deed is recorded, and in 1899, the father, while in actual and visible possession of the land executes and delivers a deed for the same land to another person, and this deed is recorded, and it appears that the father had executed in 1897, a deed to his son for the same land, and that this deed had not been recorded, but had remained in the possession of the father, the son cannot establish a resulting trust ex maleficio for the land, without proof that his father had practiced fraud or made misrepresentations in procuring the deed after it had been delivered and in keeping it in his possession.</p> <p>In such a case it is not error to refuse to admit in evidence declarations of the father made in the latter’s lifetime to the effect that the unrecorded deed had been executed and delivered, that the land still belonged to the son, that the deed was to have been returned to the son, that the father did not intend to have it recorded, but meant to destroy it, and had looked for the deed for1 that purpose, but was unable to find it.</p> <p>A trust ex maleficio can arise only at the inception of the title from fraud when practiced in obtaining it. In the absence of such fraud a trust ex maleficio cannot be created by subsequent declarations.</p>