Fickett v. Durham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill nsr equity to enforce an alleged trust relating to lands in North Carolina. The answer denied the trust, and set up the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
Bill nsr equity to enforce an alleged trust relating to lands in North Carolina. The answer denied the trust, and set up the statute of frauds. At the hearing before Wells, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show the following facts : In March 1870 the plaintiff, who had previously entered into negotiations with one Barnhart, who held a lease of a gold mine in North Carolina, for the purchase of one third of his leasehold estate for $10,000, had interviews with the defendant on the subject. The defendant proposed to join him in the purchase, and the plaintiff assented.…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
“ There is no doubt of the correctness of the doctrine, that, where the purchase money is paid by one person and the conveyance taken by another, there is a resulting trust ere •?ted by implication of law in favor of the former. And where a part of the purchase money is paid by one, and the whole title is taken by the other, a resulting trust pro tanto may in like manner, under some circumstances, be created.” McGowan v *422McGowan, 14 Gray, 119. Livermore v. Aldrich, 5 Cush. 431. The ordinary case of trusts of this character is, where the pur chase money is paid by one party and the conveyance…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Getman v. GetmanNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
3Cited by26 opinions
- Santoro v. MackSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Quinn v. QuinnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Moat v. MoatMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Bailey v. HemenwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Berenson v. NirensteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.