McNeill v. McNeill

Ross,

Official Referee. The plaintiff’s evidence of the transactions which she claims constitute a trust is very vague. It discloses her interpretations of what she believes ought to exist by reason of her dealings with her husband, rather than a definite tangible contract. This is equally true of both the original transactions relating to the New Jersey property and the transfer of the subject of the trust to the Syracuse property. As an example of this vagueness, I quote in part from the evidence:

Reference to New Jersey property (S. M. p. 6): “ Q. Tell us how the conversation started. A. He…