Crumrine v. Crumrine

Decision Date03 February 1901
Citation50 W.Va. 226,40 S.E. 341
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesCRUMRINE et al. v. CRUMRINE et al.

INVESTING WIPE'S FUNDS—FRESUMFTTON OF GIFT—EXPRESS TRUST.

1. Where a husband receives funds belonging to his wife, and with her knowledge and consent invests it in real estate in his own name, the law raises a prima facie presumption of a gift.

2. When a father receives funds in trust for his children, and invests them in real estate for their benefit, although he takes the title in his own name, he thereby creates an express trust in their behalf, which a court of equity will enforce.

3. When funds are received in express trust the lands in which they are invested will be regarded as held under the same character of trust, being a substitute for the funds.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from circuit court. Wood county; Lewis N. Tavenner, Judge.

Bill by Lorama Crumrine and another against Gussie M. Crumrine and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Sherman Robinson, B. F. Ayers, and Math-eny & Pedigo, for appellants.

J. V. Blair and M. K. Duty, for appellees.

DENT, J. Lorama Crumrine, now Lorama Duty, and John C. Crumrine, children of J. B. Crumrine and Jennie L. Crumrine, deceased, filed their bills in chancery in the circuit court of Ritchie county against Gussie M. Crumrine, widow of J. B. Crumrine deceased, and her infant children, Jennie H. Crumrine and George Crumrine, and others, for the purpose of having four certain properties, to wit, a tract of 85 1/2 acres, another tract of 100 acres, a lot of 11/4 acres, and another lot of 1 acre, of which their father, J. B. Crumrine, died seised and possessed, to be declared to be held in trust in favor of the plaintiffs. The circuit court decreed, on final hearing of the cause, that the 1-acre lot and the 100-acre tract of land were so held in trust, but dismissed the bill as to the other two tracts. The defendants appeal, and insist that the decree should have dismissed the bill without any relief to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs nowhere admit that the decree is right as to the 851/2-acre tract, insist that it is right as to the 100-acre tract and the 11/4-acre tract, but wrong as to the acre tract, which they claim should have also been decreed to them. This puts the 851/2-acre tract entirely out of consideration in this case. The 11/4 acres was purchased in 1872, and from the evidence it appears to have been paid for from money advanced to Jennie L. Crumrine shortly after her marriage, by her father, John Collins. She willingly turned the money over to her husband, and he used it in paying for the property, and took the. deed in his own name. But the facts and circumstances indicate that it was with her knowledge and consent. Hence a prima facie presumption of a gift arises, which the testimony had failed to overcome. Her confidence and trust in her husband at that time seem to have been perfect, without a cloud to darken the sky of their matrimonial happiness. There is no doubt but what she gave him the money with full faith in his proper disposition thereof for their comfort and felicity. She had no forebodings at this time as to the future. If she could have lifted the veil, and have foreseen another in the full enjoyment of her rights and position, the natural jealousy of the human heart might have caused her to have made a different disposition of her patrimony; but an all-wise Providence, for His all-wise purposes, has seen fit to make of us shortsighted creatures, with sanguine hope as to the length of our days, which may be few in number and full of trouble. The circuit court committed no error as to this lot. Berry v. Wiedman, 40 W. Va. 36, 20 S. E. 817, 52 Am. St. Rep. 866; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 580. The conclusion reached by the circuit court as to the other two lots appears to have been fully justified by the evidence. Mrs. Jennie L. Crumrine sold and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Sommers v. Bennett
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1910
    ... ... reinvested in these three tracts, the law will impress them ... with the same express trust under which they were originally ... held. Crumrine v. Crumrine, 50 W.Va. 226, 40 S.E ... 341, 88 Am. St. Rep. 859; Marshall's Executors v ... Hall, 42 W.Va. 641, 26 S.E. 300. Other cases ... ...
  • Plaintiff v. Petitioner
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1910
    ...tracts, the law will impress them with the same express trust under which they were originally held. Crumrine v. Crumrine, 50 W. Va. 22(5 (40 S. E. 341); Marshall's Executors v. Ball, 42 W. Va. 641 (26 S. E. 300). Other cases illustrating the application of this rule are: Bank v. Domestic S......
  • Pickens v. Wood
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1905
    ... ... of the husband, the money furnished is presumed prima facie ... to be a gift to the husband by the wife. Crumrine v ... Crumrine, 50 W.Va. 226, 40 S.E. 341, 88 Am. St. Rep ... 859; Horner v. Huffman, 52 W.Va. 40, 43 S.E. 132; ... McGinnis v. Curry, 13 ... ...
  • Keller v. Wash.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1919
    ...Zinn v. Law, 32 W. Va. 447, 9 S. E. 871; Bennett v. Bennett, 37 W. Va. 396, 16 S. E. 638, 38 Am. St. Rep. 47; Crumrine v. Crumrine, 50 W. Va. 228, 40 S. E. 341, 88 Am. St. Rep. 859; Horner v. Huffman, 02 W. Va. 40, 43 S. E. 132; Morris v. Westerman, 79 W. Va. 502, 508, 92 S. E. 567. Likewis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT