Dickinson v. Davis
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
By the disclosure of the trustee, it appears that she is the wife of the principal defendant, and that she received from the administrator of her father’s estate about twelve hundred dollars, which she has held in her own right, and has managed as she pleased, her husband never having interfered or reduced it to his possession.
Read the full summary
By the disclosure of the trustee, it appears that she is the wife of the principal defendant, and that she received from the administrator of her father’s estate about twelve hundred dollars, which she has held in her own right, and has managed as she pleased, her husband never having interfered or reduced it to his possession. Joshua F. Davis, her husband, some years ago, paid fifty dollars for a horse, and it does not appear from the disclosure that it was the money of the trustee, nor that it was not the money of the husband. This horse he exchanged for another horse, for which he paid…
1Opinion of the CourtBartlett, J.
"We need not inquire whether there is sufficient proof that part of the purchase money of the real estate belonged to the husband; Page v. Page, 8 N. H. 202; for if such were the fact, it would not make the wife chargeable as his trustee. It is true that there arises a presumption of a trust in favor of one who pays the purchase money of land, when it is conveyed to a stranger, but such a presumption is rebutted in case the purchase can fairly be deemed to have been made for another, from motives of naturallove and affection. 2 Story Eq., sec. 1202; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 128. Upon this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Smith v. StrahanTexas Supreme Court · 1856
- Baker v. ViningSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Guthrie v. GardnerNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Jencks v. AlexanderNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Wallace v. BowenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- Upton v. HainesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875