Zimmerman v. Barber
Citations
- 176 Pa. 1
- 34 A. 1002
- 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1031
Syllabus
<p>Trusts and trustees — Resulting tmst — Presumption—Evidence.</p> <p>Where the consideration is paid by one and the conveyance of the land is made to another the presumption that the latter holds the title in trust for the former is not conclusive, but may be rebutted by proof that it is at variance with the mutual intention, or understanding of the parties; and any circumstance which throws light on the transaction or explains its true character is admissible for the purpose of strengthening or rebutting it.</p> <p>A decedent in his lifetime conveyed a tract of land to one of his sons, taking judgments against the son to secure the purchase money. After the decedent’s death execution was issued on a junior judgment against the son, and the property worth about $1,000 was levied on. P., another of the decedent’s sons paid the executor $200, and with this sum the executor bought in the property, taking title to himself as executor. Shortly after this, P. entered into possession of the land. Ten years after decedent’s death and seven years after the executor received a deed for the property, the executor sold it at public sale for $50.00 to S., who conveyed it to plaintiff. In an action of ejectment against P., held, (1) that there could be no resulting trust in favor of P. for more than a one fifth interest in the land, and whether he acquired any claim upon or interest in it, except as heir or creditor, depended upon the intention with which the money was furnished; (2) that it was for the jury to determine with what intention the land was bought, and the purchase money furnished; (3) that it was competent for either party to show the assets and liabilities of the estate of the decedent at the time of the sale, and subsequent conversations between the executor and P. in reference to the transaction consummated by the sale; (4j that these matters were proper for the consideration of the jury in determining whether it was the intention of the parties that tlie execu
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- for the purpose of calculating benefits in occupational disease cases under the Act, the date of injury must be the date of last exposure
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Queen, Stekrett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.