Dudley v. Dudley
Decision Date | 17 April 1900 |
Citation | 176 Mass. 34,56 N.E. 1011 |
Parties | DUDLEY v. DUDLEY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hiram P. Harriman, Geo. L. Well, and H. E. Perkins, for plaintiff.
M Storey and L. K. Morse, for defendant.
The whole record before us shows that the plaintiff's contention, to have a resulting trust declared in his favor rests upon the fact that in the year 1884 he caused the land to be conveyed to the defendant in consideration of a sum of $1,000 furnished by the plaintiff, and of a note and mortgage made by the defendant for the balance of the purchase money amounting to $2,800; the plaintiff intending, and the defendant agreeing, but not in writing, that the title taken by the defendant in her own name should be held by her for the benefit of the plaintiff. Upon this state of facts, he has no right to have a trust declared in his favor, for the reason that a part of the consideration, only, was furnished by himself, and the rest of the consideration was furnished by the defendant. The case stated is governed by the decision of McGowan v. McGowan, 14 Gray, 119; Bourke v. Callanan, 160 Mass. 195, 35 N.E. 460. It is to be distinguished from McDonough v. O'Neil, 113 Mass. 92, by the circumstances that in the present case when the purchase was made from the defendant's grantor the land was unincumbered, and the note and mortgage made by the defendant were given as payment, in part, of the purchase price of unincumbered land, while in McDonough v. O'Neil the purchase was of an equity of redemption, and the note and mortgage given by the grantee were not given to his grantor, and were no part of the price paid for the conveyance, but were given to the former mortgagee in substitution for his former mortgage. See Bourke v. Callanan, 160 Mass. 195, 196, 35 N.E. 460. Therefore the bill was rightly dismissed, if the fact that part of the consideration of the conveyance to the defendant was her note and mortgage given to her grantor in part payment of the price of the land was not inconsistent with the findings of the jury upon the issues theretofore submitted to them.
When issues of fact are submitted to a jury in an equity suit, and a verdict is rendered upon the issues, and is not set aside the verdict is regarded as settling the facts so put in issue. The verdict is conclusive upon those issues. But the justice who hears the cause may, however, find upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial