Godschalck v. Fulmer
| Decision Date | 24 October 1898 |
| Citation | 176 Ill. 64,51 N.E. 852 |
| Parties | GODSCHALCK v. FULMER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
This is a bill in chancery by plaintiff in error against defendants in error to set aside a deed of conveyance by Ruben H. Fulmer to Julius P. Roedel, assignee, to the following described real estate: The E. 1/2 of the S. W. 1/4 section 6, township 16, range 9 E. of the third P. M., in Douglas county, Ill., and to compel the said Fulmer to convey the same to her, claiming to be the owner, the legal title being held by Fulmer, her brother, in trust for her. The bill sets up the fact that plaintiff in error, together with her said brother and other members of the family, after the death of their father, continued to reside on the home place, near St. Marys, in the state of Indiana, until complainant reached the age of 31 years, when she married and moved to Douglas county, this state; that no division of the home place in Indiana was ever had; that, while she remained there, by her labor and attention to the household affairs of the family, she contributed to paying an indebtedness against the home farm, and also in purchasing other lands, the title to which was taken in the name of her brothers; that her said brother Ruben H. Fulmer has continued to reside upon the home place, exercising ownership over it as his own; that, after her marriage and removal to this state, he informed her that, if she would select a place here, he would purchase it for her in lieu of her interest in the Indiana farm; and that, relying upon that promise, she and her husband selected the land in question, then belonging to Henry Gray, and contracted with him for the purchase thereof at a consideration of $3,080. The allegation of the bill upon which prayer for relief is based is as follows: ‘And, upon contracting for the same, oratrix notified her brother Ruben H. Fulmer of the contracting for such farm; and on the 10th day of March, 1887, the contract for the purchase of said land was consummated, and, in consideration of an agreement between oratrix and the said Ruben H. Fulmer, deed was taken to and in the name of said Fulmer, to be by him held in trust for oratrix, for the reason that there were fears that, if the deed was taken in the name of oratrix, oratrix might, through the influence of her husband, squander and lose the farm for debts made by her said husband, and so it was agreed that the deed might be and was taken in the name of said Ruben H. Fulmer, to be by him held in trust for oratrix, until oratrix and her husband would pay off a trust-deed lien, which, at the time of the purchase of the same, existed against said land to the amount of $1,500 and interest.’ She then alleges that she went into possession of the land under that arrangement, and has since resided there, making valuable and lasting improvements thereon, and paying all taxes against the land; that the $1,500 has been paid off, by making a new loan of $2,200, the excess being paid to her brother in satisfaction of debts due from her and her husband to him; that she has frequently requested her brother to execute a conveyance for the land to her, but that he has neglected and refused to do so; that on the 14th day of August, 1893, her said brother made a deed of assignment, conveying all his estate to Julius F. Roedel, as assignee, for the benefit of his creditors. Complainant then tenders a deed of conveyance for all her interest in the Indiana farm, and prays that Fulmer may be required to make a good and sufficient deed of conveyance, and that the deed of assignment be removed as a cloud upon her title. To this bill the brother filed an answer, which, in effect, is a denial of the allegations of a promise on his part to purchase the land for complainant, and an agreement to hold in trust for her. He also sets up the statute of frauds in bar of the right of complainant to the relief prayed, on the ground that the trust alleged was not declared in writing.
After a re-examination of the voluminous testimony in this record, and the additional arguments filed on the rehearing, we have been unable to reach a different conclusion from that announced in our former opinion. It is impossible to construe the bill of complainant as other than a bill to compel the performance of an express trust. This can be made no plainer than by reference to the allegations above set forth: ‘And so it was agreed that the deed might be and was taken in the name of said Ruben H. Fulmer, to be by him held in trust for oratrix, until oratrix and her husband would pay off a trust-deed lien,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White Stat Min. Co. v. Hultberg
...trust, as against the statute of frauds, cannot be established by parol proof. Dick v. Dick, 172 Ill. 578, 50 N. E. 142;Godschalk v. Fulmer, 176 Ill. 64, 51 N. E. 852. It is, however, argued, that if the evidence does not establish an express trust it shows a resulting trust. The evidence i......
-
Noland v. Haywood, 1803
... ... certain that the court can require to be done the specific ... thing agreed to be done.' ( Godschalk v. Fulmer, ... 176 Ill. 64, 51 N.E. 852). And where the contract is for the ... conveyance of land the description 'must be sufficient to ... fix and ... ...
-
Freeburgh v. Lamoureux
...contract, the contract "must be so certain that the court can require to be done the specific thing agreed to be done." (Godschalk v. Fulmer, 176 Ill. 64, 51 N.E. 852.) where the contract is for the conveyance of land the description "must be sufficient to fix and comprehend the property wh......
-
Kelly v. Lehmann
...and the statute of frauds set up in the answer is a complete defense because the trust was not declared in writing. Godschalk v. Fulmer, 176 Ill. 64, 51 N. E. 852;Lancaster v. Springer, 239 Ill. 472, 88 N. E. 272;Stubbings v. Stubbings, 248 Ill. 406, 94 N. E. 54;Delfosse v. Delfosse, 287 Il......