Walter v. Snowden

Citations

• 5 Sadler 154

Syllabus

<p>A resulting trust may be established by parol evidence; but such evidence .-must be clear and unequivocal.</p> <p>In 1866 William Walter requested his daughters to look out for a farm for their brother Marshall. They reported the approaching sale of a farm, and the father directed Israel, another son, to buy the farm and hold it in ■trust for Marshall for life, and after Marshall’s death for his children. The ■father said that he would pay for it. Israel bought the farm and Marshall took possession of it. There was no direct evidence whether it was paid, for with the father’s money or Israel’s. Israel was well able to pay for it. The father died. In 1868 Israel made a will by which he devised the farm to trustees for the use of Marshall during life and afterward to Marshall’s ■children. In 1878 Israel became embarrassed and made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, but did not include this farm in his inventory. Israel died in 1881 and, in extremis, devised the farm to his daughters. Marshall filed a bill in 1883 against Israel’s executor and devisees, for an ■injunction to restrain them from conveying the farm to others, and compel them to convey the legal title to him. Much testimony was offered as to _ admissions by Israel. The master found that the evidence was in.suffieient to prove that the father’s (William Walter’s) money bought the farm, and therefore, that, as no trust resulted, the bill should be dismissed. The court below confirmed the report and dismissed the bill. Held, that the ■decree should not be disturbed.</p> <p>Note. — For proof of resulting trusts, see note to Ackley v. Ackley, 1 Sad. '.Rep, 138, and Buck v. Henderson, 3 Sad. Rep. 111.</p>