Ray v. Winter
Appellate Court of Illinois
1DissentJustice Jones
The majority has misinterpreted the facts of this case and applied the wrong principles of law to the facts, and, as an understandable consequence, has reached the wrong result. I therefore respectfully dissent.
Even though the defendants agreed voluntarily and gratuitously to act for the plaintiff in purchasing the land in question, and advanced the purchase price therefor, they are nevertheless held in equity to have acted for the plaintiff, and they will be deemed to hold the property in a constructive trust for the benefit of the plaintiff. Morals and good conscience require this result…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Doner v. Phoenix Joint Stock Land Bank of Kansas CityIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
- Dennis v. McCaggIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
- Mianulli v. GunaganNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- Switzer v. SkilesIllinois Supreme Court · 1846
- Watson v. Union Iron & Steel Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1884