Smith v. Smith
Citations
- 85 Ill. 189
Syllabus
<p>1. Resulting trust—when it arises. Where two parties agree that one shall purchase land, which is done, and each pays one-half the price, and the deed is made to the one making the purchase, a resulting trust will arise in favor of the other as to an undivided half of the land, notwithstanding he paid his part of the money under an express agreement that the party taking the deed should convey him one-half interest.</p> <p>3. Chancery practice—record. A decree in chancery dismissing a hill will he reversed if, by proofs appearing in the record, it is not justified, notwithstanding the clerk, in his certificate, fails to state that the transcript contains all the depositions and evidence in the case. The absence of such a statement in the certificate of evidence will not justify any presumption that there was other evidence heard which would justify the decree.</p>
Judges: Sheldon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia· 1920-09-28· cited 44×
- Dorman v. DormanIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-10-19· cited 33×
- Kochorimbus v. MaggosIllinois Supreme Court· 1926-10-28· cited 30×
- Harris v. McIntyreIllinois Supreme Court· 1886-10-05· cited 25×
- Furber v. PageIllinois Supreme Court· 1892-10-31· cited 20×
- Bride v. StormerIllinois Supreme Court· 1938-04-15· cited 17×
- McDonnell v. HoldenIllinois Supreme Court· 1933-04-22· cited 13×
- John v. JohnIllinois Supreme Court· 1926-06-16· cited 7×
- Kelsey v. StarkeyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1882-05-31· cited 1×
- Alexander v. AlexanderAppellate Court of Illinois· 1892-12-12· cited 1×
- Turner v. TurnerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1886-12-18
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.