Browdy v. Browdy
| Decision Date | 09 January 1925 |
| Citation | 250 Mass. 515,145 N.E. 868 |
| Parties | BROWDY v. BROWDY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Hampden County; Burns, Judge.
Bill in equity by Max Browdy against Rosa Browdy and others to establish trust in certain real estate alleged to have been purchased by plaintiff and defendant Rosa Browdy, title to which was taken in their children. Decree for said defendant, dismissing bill, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Simpson, Clason & Callahan, of Springfield, for plaintiff.
W. G. Brownson, of Springfield, for defendant.
The plaintiff is the husband of the defendant Rosa Browdy. The defendants Fannie and Lillian are their children. In 1910 the plaintiff and his wife purchased a tract of real estate and caused the title to the same to be placed in the name of Fannie and Lillian Browdy. In 1912, at the request of the plaintiff and his wife, Lillian, without receiving any consideration therefor, conveyed her interest to Fannie Browdy. Neither Fannie nor Lillian furnished any part of the consideration for the conveyance, all of the consideration being supplied by the plaintiff and the defendant Rosa. Taxes, insurance and expenses for repairs since the time of the original purchase have been paid by them. It was found that, at the time of the purchase of the real estate, it was not intended that a gift should be made to Fannie and Lillian; that it was purchased by Max and Rosa for a home. There was no evidence introduced to show what proportion each contributed. The plaintiff contends that a trust resulted to himself and Rosa, or that a trust resulted to himself of a onehalf interest in the real estate. The suit in equity is brought by the husband as the sole plaintiff. The question does not arise whether Max and Rosa Browdy, as joint plaintiffs, could claim a resulting trust in the land, it having been purchased with their funds and the title taken in the name of the daughters.
A resulting trust cannot be established for the benefit of the plaintiff alone. It is not known what part of the purchase price he contributed. It is not shown that he paid the entire consideration. It is well settled that a trust does not result to a person paying a part of the consideration, where the title is taken in the name of another, unless it appears that a specific and a distinct interest in the land was paid for. A general contribution of money to the purchase price is not sufficient. McGowan v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v. Quinn
...313, 315, 119 N. E. 785;Daniels v. Daniels, 240 Mass. 380, 134 N. E. 235;Ciarlo v. Ciarlo, 244 Mass. 453, 139 N. E. 344;Browdy v. Browdy, 250 Mass. 515, 145 N. E. 868;Moynihan v. Murphy, 253 Mass. 110, 148 N. E. 380;O'Brien v. O'Brien, 256 Mass. 308, 152 N. E. 80;Olcott v. Bynum, 17 Wall. 4......
-
Druker v. Druker
...223 Mass. 382, 384, 111 N. E. 963, 964, and cases cited. See Daniels v. Daniels, 240 Mass. 380, 385, 134 N. E. 235;Browdy v. Browdy, 250 Mass. 515, 516, 517, 145 N. E. 868. See, also, Moynihan v. Murphy, 253 Mass. 110, 148 N. E. 380; O'Brien v. O'Brien, supra; Quinn v. Quinn, 260 Mass. 494,......
-
In re Snider Bros., Inc.
...(1970); Frank v. Frank, 340 Mass. 132, 162 N.E.2d 781 (1959); Moat v. Moat, 301 Mass. 469, 17 N.E.2d 710 (1938); and Browdy v. Browdy, 250 Mass. 515, 145 N.E. 868 (1925). Mr. Abramoff furnished consideration in the form of the restrictive covenant; furthermore, he abided by the terms of the......
-
Russo v. Russo
...trust cannot be established solely with respect to whatever interest in the property the plaintiff took in 1960. Browdy v. Browdy, 250 Mass. 515, 516--517, 145 N.E. 868 (1925). But that fact is not decisive of the case. It is well settled that where, as here, the whole purchase price is pai......