Goodman v. Crowley

• Citation: 61 S.W. 850,161 Mo. 657
• Parties: GOODMAN v. CROWLEY et al.
• Decision Date: 29 March 1901
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

61 S.W. 850

161 Mo. 657

GOODMAN v. CROWLEY et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 29, 1901.

RESULTING TRUSTS — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — PLEADING.

1. Plaintiff sued to establish a trust in land purchased by defendant's decedent under an alleged contract that the purchaser should hold it for plaintiff, taking legal title in the purchaser's name, the purchaser at the time being, as alleged, indebted to plaintiff; such purchase to be made in consideration of the settlement and payment of the indebtedness. There was no proof that the purchaser was indebted to plaintiff, but there was evidence that she had stated to a third person that she had purchased the land for the plaintiff, and that the title was held by her to prevent the husband of the plaintiff from disposing of the land. The plaintiff and her husband took charge of the property, paid the taxes thereon, received the proceeds, which were much greater than the taxes and expense of improvements, but there was no evidence of any contract. Held insufficient to establish a resulting trust in the land in favor of plaintiff.

2. If a contemplated gift by the decedent to plaintiff failed for want of a sufficient conveyance, equity has no power to supply that defect by ordering a conveyance, or convert the imperfect settlement or gift into a declaration of trust.

Error to circuit court, Ray county; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.

Suit by Permelia J. Goodman against John S. Crowley and others to establish a resulting trust in realty. From a decree in favor of the defendants, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. L. Farris & Son, for plaintiff in error. Lavelock & Divelbiss, for defendants in error.

ROBINSON, J.

This is a suit in equity, brought by appellant against the administrator and heirs of Nannie Crowley, deceased, the object and purpose of which is to have a trust declared in 40 acres of land in Ray county, in this state, and title thereto vested in plaintiff, and to enjoin the administrator from proceeding with the sale of said lands as the property of said Nannie Crowley, deceased. The grounds specified for the pretended trust are set forth in the following allegation of the bill: "Plaintiff, for further statement of her cause of action and equitable relief, states that on or about June 12, A. D. 1890, Nannie Crowley, being indebted to plaintiff in the sum of about $800, and knowing that plaintiff wanted to purchase the following described real estate, to wit, the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 19, township 54, range 29, Ray county, Missouri, which lay close to and adjoining homestead of plaintiff, and knowing that plaintiff, in order to purchase said land, was compelled to collect the amount then due and owing from her, the said Nannie Crowley, she, the said Nannie Crowley, in consideration of the settlement and payment of said indebtedness due the plaintiff as aforesaid, promised and agreed with plaintiff to purchase the land as aforesaid for plaintiff, taking the title to said land in the name of her, the said Nannie Crowley, as trustee for plaintiff; that soon after said agreement, and pursuant thereto, the said Nannie Crowley purchased the lands as aforesaid, taking the legal title in her name; that immediately upon the purchase of said lands as aforesaid, plaintiff, by and with the consent of said Nannie Crowley, took possession of said lands, and since about the ____ day of June, A. D. 1900, has had the absolute and undisputed possession and control thereof; that, believing that said lands belonged to plaintiff, plaintiff, with full knowledge on the part of said Nannie Crowley, erected valuable and lasting improvements thereon, to wit, a barn, costing about the sum of $100, which was erected about the year 1892, and also an orchard at about the cost of $100; that by reason of the premises the said Nannie Crowley was a trustee holding the legal title of said premises for the sole benefit, use, and behoof of plaintiff, her heirs and assigns, forever." The defendants answered separately by way of general denial to the allegation of plaintiff's bill, and after a hearing of the facts the bill was, by the court, dismissed. The controversy is practically one between the plaintiff...