Bullman v. Edney

• Decision Date: 11 October 1950
• Docket Number: No. 90,90
• Citation: 232 N.C. 465,61 S.E.2d 338
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BULLMAN, v. EDNEY.

Page 338

61 S.E.2d 338

232 N.C. 465

BULLMAN, v. EDNEY.

No. 90

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 11, 1950

Cecil C. Jackson, Asheville, for plaintiff appellant.

Geo. F. Meadows, Asheville, for defendant appellee.

WINBORNE, Justice.

Ownership of personal property, when challenged, is always a mixed question of law and fact. If the facts are not in dispute it becomes a question of law for the court. But if they be in dispute, the question is left to the jury under proper instructions by the court upon the law. 42 Am.Jur. 218, Personal property, 41. Applying these rules to the evidence offered on the trial of present action, in Superior Court as shown in the record on this appeal, the facts being in dispute, the question of ownership of the automobile involved should have been submitted to the jury under proper instruction by the court upon the applicable principles of law.

In this connection it must be borne in mind that plaintiff alleges that she and her husband purchased the automobile in question from defendant for the consideration of $800.00, of which she paid $500.00 in cash and her husband agreed to pay the balance. If this allegation be true, as plaintiff's evidence tends to show, plaintiff and her husband became co-owners of, or tenants in common in the ownership of, the automobile, nothing else appearing, in the proportion the amount each paid, or agreed to pay, bears to the whole purchase price. And while 'one who owns an undivided interest in a chattel may sell such interest and thereby render the buyer a tenant in common with the other co-owners, * * * one co-tenant cannot convey any greater title or interest than he has, except where the conduct of the co-tenant estops him from asserting title against the innocent buyer'. See 46 Am.Jur. 217, Sales, 22.

And it is a well settled principle that where, on the purchase of property, the conveyance of the legal estate is taken in the name of one person, but the purchase money is paid by another at the same time or previously, and as a part of one transaction, a trust results in favor of him who supplies the purchase money. Beam v. Bridgers, 108 N.C. 276, 13 S.E. 112, 23 Am.St.Rep. 59.

This principle has been frequently applied where land is purchased with funds arising from the separate estate of the wife. Lyon v. Aikn, 78 N.C. 258; Cunningham v. Bell, 83 N.C. 328; Hackett v. Shuford, 86 N.C. 144; Beam v. Bridgers, supra. See also Annotation 113 A.L.R. 339; 54 Am.Jur. 158, Trusts, 203; 28 Am.Jur. 730, Husband and Wife, 104. Compare Bass v. Bass, 229 N.C. 171, 48 S.E.2d 48.

In Lyon v. Aikn, supra, the opinion is epitomized by this headnote: 'Where land is purchased by a husband with his wife's money * * * and title is taken to the husband alone, a resulting trust is created in favor of the wife, and a purchaser from the husband with notice stands affected by the same trust'.

The principle of resulting trusts applies alike to transactions relating to both real and personal property. 54 Am.Jur. 158, Trusts, 203.

Moreover, if a tenancy in common in the automobile was created, and existed between plaintiff and her husband, and defendant 'stands in the shoes' of the husband, and the automobile be available therefor, there is provision by statute, G.S. § 46-44, as amended by ...