Phillips v. Phillips
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). It is earnestly insisted by counsel for appellants that the decree should be reversed because, under our statute of frauds, parol evidence could not hie introduced to create an express trust in a deed absolute in form, and that there could be no trust ex maleficio in favor of A. J. Phillips against Charles M. Phillips. On this latter proposition we cannot agree with counsel for appellants. It is true that in order to establish a trust ex maleficio there must be an element of positive fraud accompanying the promise, by means of which the acquisition of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bray v. TimmsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Eckert v. StewartCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Barron v. StuartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Davidson v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Coleman v. WegmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926