Catoe v. Catoe

• Decision Date: 18 March 1890
• Citation: 10 S.E. 1078,32 S.C. 595
• Parties: Catoe v. Catoe et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

10 S.E. 1078

(32 S.C. 595)

Catoe

v.Catoe et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 18, 1890.

Resulting Trusts—Advancements —Receipts.

1. Plaintiff sought to establish a resulting trust, by parol evidence that he had paid for the land, and directed its conveyance to the grantee named in the deed. There was no evidence that he had the means with which to pay for the land. The draughtsman testified that plaintiff told him that the money had been paid by the grantee. The grantee mortgaged it, and held it as his own until his death. Held that, as the evidence must be clear, strong, and without doubt as to fact of payment by the alleged beneficiary, the trust was not established.

2. Where a person, in order to protect land from his creditors, allows it to stand in the name of another, the court will not help him to recover it.

3. A receipt may always be explained by parol evidence.

4. Where a father pays for land, and has the deed therefor executed to his son, the transaction will be treated as an advancement to the son, and not as a resulting trust, especially where the son is allowed to retain it for many years, mortgaging and in every way treating it as his own.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Lancaster county; Witherspoon, Judge.

R. E. & R. B. Allison, for appellant.

McGowan, J. In December, 1886, John E. Catoe died intestate, leaving a widow, Margaret M. Catoe, the plaintiff, and several children, minors, as his heirs at law. The widow, Margaret M., administered upon the estate, and instituted this proceeding, making the children and certain mort gagees parties defendant, praying for the sale of the lands of intestate in aid of assets in paying the debts, to call in creditors, marshal the assets, and for homestead in the lands. The complaint alleged that the intestate died seised and possessed of two tracts of land known, respectively, as the "Home Place, " 340 acres, and the "Ben Place, " 260 acres. Upon petition, James Catoe, the father of the intestate, John E. Catoe, was made a party defendant; and he set up title in himself to the Ben place and to seven acres alleged to be included in the Home place. There is no controversy as to the execution by the intestate, John E. Catoe, of a mortgage of the Home place to the Scotch Land Company, or of a mortgage of the Ben place to Charles F. Hinson, deceased. The single question in the case arises on the claim of the defendant James Catoe to the Ben place. As to that claim, there was a mass of testimony; much of it consisting of alleged declarations of the parties, and inconsistent, and absolutely contradictory, in character. The circuit judge states as follows: "It appears that the Ben place was sold as the property of James Catoe on February 5, 1872, by the sheriff of Lancaster county, and was bid off for $735, by Hasseltine & Chaffee, to whom the sheriff executed title the next day. On September 27, 1881, Hasseltine & Chaffee conveyed the Ben place to John E. Catoe, son of James. Their deed was recorded March 7, 1886, and recites that it was agreed at the time of the sheriff's sale that Hasseltine & Chaffee would reconvey the land upon being paid the money paid by them, with interest. In consideration of the premises, and the sum of one dollar, and that said sum and interest had been paid, the land was conveyed, as above stated, to John E. Catoe, the son. The defendant James Catoe, the father, alleges that he paid Hasseltine & Chaffee the amount in full, with interest, prior to the conveyance by Hasseltine & Chaffee to John E. Catoe; that he did not authorize Hasseltine & Chaffee to convey the land to John E., and that he knew nothing of the deed, or of the mortgage of the Ben place by John E. Catoe. He contends that he is the beneficial owner of the land under a resulting trust. As it does not appear by the deed from Hasseltine & Chaffee to John E. Catoe that James Catoe has any interest in the premises, resort must be had to parol proof to establish a beneficial interest in the land claimed by James Catoe, " etc. After reviewing the testimony fully and at great length, his honor, the circuit judge, among other things not now before us, as to the Ben place, found, as matter of fact, that James Catoe did not pay Hasseltine & Chaffee the money they paid at the sheriff's sale for the land, that Hasseltine & Chaffee conveyed the title of the Ben place to John E. Catoe with the knowledge, and at the request, of James Catoe; and that the...