Towle v. Wadsworth

Citations

• 147 Ill. 80

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery—sufficiency of the evidence—presumption. Where the testimony of the witnesses in a chancery suit is taken orally in open court, so that the chancellor hears them testify, and the evidence is conflicting, the decree will not be reversed, as beiqg contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, unless such preponderance is clear and undoubted.</p> <p>2. Where the trial court hears the witnesses give their testimony in .a chancery suit, he will occupy a better position to judge of their credibility than an appellate court, and a strong presumption will arise in favor of the finding of the decree, which must prevail unless this court can clearly see that the court below was in error. In such case there is the same necessity as exists on a trial by a jury, that the error in finding as to facts shall be clear and palpable, to authorize a reversal.</p> <p>3. Statute op Frauds—not applicable to a resulting trust. The Statute of Frauds is no defense to a bill for the enforcement of a resulting trust.</p> <p>4. Resulting trust—purchase made by one on joint account. Where the defendant, in pursuance of his verbal agreement to that effect, advances the money required to make the first payment on the purchase of land, and such advance is made for himself and the complainant jointly, and he thus, in effect, loans one-half of the money so advanced to the complainant, and pays it to the vendor, and gives his notes for the deferred payments, taking the title in the defendant’s name as a security for the repayment of half the purchase money, a resulting trust will arise in favor of the complainant for the undivided half of the property.</p> <p>5. Same—kind and degree of evidence required. To establish a resulting trust the proof must be full, clear and satisfactory, and it should be received with due caution. But in considering evidence for such purpose two things are to be kept in mind: first, its truthfulness; and secondly, its effect.</p>