Walter v. Klock

Citations

• 55 Ill. 362

Syllabus

<p>1. Trust in respect to lands—by parol—statute of frauds. Where a purchaser of lauds under a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage, took the title in his own name, and gave his note for the purchase money, it was held, an express trust could not arise in favor of one who held the equity of redemption, on a parol agreement between the latter and the purchaser, made at the time or prior to the sale, that the purchaser should make the purchase and hold the title for the benefit of, and in trust for, such owner of the equity of redemption, and as a security for the advances made by the purchaser. Such a trust, resting merely in parol, is within the statute of frauds.</p> <p>2. No subsequent arrangement, made after the purchase, nor any parol agreement existing before, nor parol declaration at the time that a purchase is made, for the benefit of some other person, will raise a trust in favor of the latter, in the absence of any other fraud than that which arises from the violation of the purchaser’s parol promise, where he takes the title in his own name, and pays the consideration out of his own funds.</p> <p>3. Resulting trust—whether it arises. Nor was there a resulting trust in the case of the purchase under the foreclosure, because that can only arise when the consideration, or some aliquot part thereof, was furnished by the party in whose favor the trust is claimed, as a part of the original transaction.</p> <p>4. After the legal title has vested, and there is no proof of fraud, a resulting trust can not be raised in favor of a third party, who may pay the unpaid purchase money; and where the purchaser gives his note for the purchase price, that is equivalent to the payment of the money.</p>