Stevens v. Hicks

Citations

• 84 Kan. 351
• 113 P. 1049
• 1911 Kan. LEXIS 330

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Resulting Trust — Circumstantial Evidence — Land Purchased in Name of Another, Since Deceased. Where a son buys and pays for real estate and causes it to be deeded to his widowed mother, with whom the son and three daughters are living together as a family, and where, after the death of the mother, a daughter claiming as an heir brings an action to partition the property, and the son is incompetent to testify to any transaction with the mother affecting the title, the fact that there was an agreement that the mother was to hold the title in trust for him may be proved by circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>2. -Fraudulent Intent — Evidence. All the circumstances of the transaction may also be considered in determining whether it was consummated without any fraudulent intent.</p> <p>3. Fraud — Presumptions and Burden of Proof — Resulting Trust. As a general rule, neither fraud nor a fraudulent intent is to be presumed, but good faith is presumed until disputed; but to sustain a resulting trust under the last clause of section 9701 of the General Statutes of 1909 the absence of a fraudulent intent must affirmatively appear. Such absence of fraudulent intent may be inferred when the relations of the trustee and cestui que trust and the circumstances surrounding the transaction are disclosed and it appears that no right of any other person was involved or affected thereby.</p>