Pharr v. Fink
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court, Northern Distract; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; The relation of trustee and cestui que trust existed between appellant and Dowdy. 117 N. E. 406. The deed having been made to a trustee and to his successors, any one who deals with the trust property, with that notice written upon the face of the deed, does so at his peril.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court, Northern Distract; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; The relation of trustee and cestui que trust existed between appellant and Dowdy. 117 N. E. 406. The deed having been made to a trustee and to his successors, any one who deals with the trust property, with that notice written upon the face of the deed, does so at his peril. Where the purchase money is paid by one and the title to land taken in another, a trust results by operation of law to the one who pays the money, and parol testimony is admissible to establish the nature and extent of the trust. 13 Enc.…
1DissentMcCulloch, C. J.
I am unable to discover in this case any of the elements of a trust ex maleficio. There is nothing shown on the part of the alleged trustee- except the breach of his promise to carry out the alleged trust, and this court has decided in all of the cases, beginning with Ammonette v. Black, 73 Ark. 310, that this is not sufficient to create an enforceable trust. Bragg v. Hartney, 92 Ark. 55; Spradling v. Spradling, 101 Ark. 451; LaCotts v. LaCotts, 109 Ark. 335; Ussery v. Ussery, 113 Ark. 36; Worthen v. Vogler, 145 Ark. 161; Roberts v. Pratt, 147 Ark. 575.
The controlling rule was stated by Judge…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Earle Improvement Co. v. ChatfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Spradling v. SpradlingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Ammonette v. BlackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Bragg v. HartneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- LaCotts v. LaCottsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.