Walker v. Walker

Citations

• 254 Pa. 220
• 98 A. 890
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 710

Syllabus

<p>Trusts — Real property — Resulting trusts — Parol evidence — Sufficiency — Gase for jury.</p> <p>1. Evidence in support of a trust must be clear, precise, convincing and satisfactory to the conscience of a chancellor.</p> <p>2. In an action of ejectment to recover land alleged to be held by defendant in trust for plaintiff, there was evidence that plaintiff had paid a part of the purchase-price and that a mortgage negotiated by her husband had been placed on the property out of which the balance of the purchase-price had been paid, and that the legal title to the property had been taken by one of defendants, and had been conveyed to a corporation, the other defendant, with notice of the facts; and there was further evidence that defendants had made improvements upon the property for which they had been reimbursed by plaintiff. Defendants offered evidence that they had purchased the property for their own use and had paid the purchase-price. The trial judge charged the jury that if they found clear, precise and indubitable evidence that the transaction took place as contended by plaintiff, they might find a verdict in her favor. Held, a verdict for the plaintiff should be sustained.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals—Assignments of error — Refusal of new trial — Evidence—Specific objection — Waiver of other reasons.</p> <p>3. The refusal of a new trial is not a proper subject for an assignment of error, unless the record discloses abuse of discretion in refusing the motion.</p> <p>4. Where a specific objection has been made to the admission of evidence, all reasons not enumerated in the objection are waived, and on appeal the appellant will be limited to the ground of objection specified in the court below.</p> <p>5. Where irrelevant matter has been improperly admitted, but at the time it was offered an objection was made not on the ground that the evidence was irrelevant, but on the ground that it was offered to prove by parol what could only be proved by w