Hill v. Pangle

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The petitioner in essence alleges that she and defendant contemplated marriage and in reliance thereon she paid $1,000 as a down payment on described realty, took possession thereof and has expended $3,000 for improvements thereon but title was taken in the defendant’s *144name with the understanding that petitioner should have the beneficial use of the land after their expected marriage; that the defendant placed a mortgage thereon, and both plaintiff and defendant have been making the monthly mortgage payments in equal amounts; that all of this was done in contemplation…