O'Hair v. O'Hair
Decision Date | 29 July 1905 |
Citation | 88 S.W. 945,76 Ark. 389 |
Parties | O'HAIR v. O'HAIR |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, JESSE C. HART, Judge.
Affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
J. A Comer, for appellant.
In order to create a resulting trust in favor of one who pays the purchase money for property bought in the name of another, the payment must be contemporaneous with the purchase. 30 Ark. 230; 29 Ark. 612; 26 Ark. 445. As to lot 6 appellant was entitled to the declaration of a resulting trust. 134 Ind. 529; 116 Ind. 175; 134 Ind. 115; 92 Ia. 610; 40 Ia. 152; 69 Ky. 339; 77 Me. 465; Am. Dig. 1904 A, 1451 Am. Dig. 1904, B, 4422.
Blackwood & Williams, for appellee.
There are no such circumstances in this case as to take it out of the general rule as to resulting trusts, laid down in 40 Ark 67 and 45 Ark. 481. The presumption is that the purchases were made by way of gift or advancement. 70 Ark. 149; 68 Ark 408; 57 Ark. 634; 51 Ark. 530; 47 Ark. 62; 52 Ark. 188; 36 Ark. 588. There was no error in the modification of the decree after the cause was appealed. Cf. 42 Ark. 495; 12 Ark. 369; 13 Ark. 54.
The parties to this suit are husband and wife; they have been married thirty-two years, and are the parents of nine children, and in their old age have fallen into litigation with each other over lots 4, 5 and 6 in block 142, in the city of Little Rock. Lot 4 was purchased in 1887 by Mrs. O'Hair from her mother, contrary to the wishes of Mr. O'Hair. It was heavily incumbered, and the equity not of great value. Part of lot 5 was purchased by Mrs. O'Hair, or rather she made a small payment on the purchase price, while Mr. O'Hair was in Colorado for his health, and without his knowledge. The other parts of the lot were purchased subsequently. The titles were taken in Mrs. O'Hair's name, and the evidence shows that the mortgages were reduced, and the purchase price paid, by moneys derived from Mr. O'Hair, Mrs. O'Hair, their children, and the rents from the property. Lot 6 was purchased by Mr. O'Hair, paid for by him, and the title taken in his wife's name. He was then in embarrassed circumstances, and testifies that the title was put in her name to protect her and the family from anything which might happen to him, and to secure a home for themselves and their children.
Mr. O'Hair is seeking to impress a trust upon lots 4 and 5 in his favor for the payments made for their purchase, which he claims were practically all made by him, and upon lot 6 on account of an understanding with his wife that it was to be held for their mutual benefit.
Passing the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a trust, even if the transaction was between strangers (see Tillar v. Henry, 75 Ark. 446, 88 S.W. 573), there is no trust in this case. Judge EAKIN thus expressed the whole situation as presented by this record:
Ward v. Estate of Ward, 36 Ark. 586.
The principles controlling this case may be found in Milner v. Freeman, 40 Ark. 62; Robinson v. Robinson, 45 Ark. 481; Bogy v. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 2 S.W. 186; White v. White, 52 Ark. 188, 12 S.W. 201; Rhea v. Bagley, 63 Ark. 374, 38 S.W. 1039; Culberhouse v. Culberhouse, 68...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Wood
...presumption by proof that is clear and convincing. 101 Ark. 456; 103 Ark. 273-8; 104 Ark. 32-6; 48 Ark. 18; 104 Ark. 301-11; 84 Ark. 322; 76 Ark. 389; 100 Ark. 372. 4. Counsel review the evidence and contend that there was never any delivery of the deed. Both parties say that it was execute......
-
Harbour v. Harbour
...9 Ark. 507; 38 Ark. 119; 14 Cyc. 631, § 2. 2. Appellee was not entitled to restoration of property. 78 Ark. 346; 73 Ark. 289; 15 Mo. 496; 76 Ark. 389; 80 Ark. 3. The deeds in evidence do not constitute a trust of any kind. 40 Ark. 67; 45 Ark. 381; 70 Ark. 145; 44 Ark. 365; 11 Ark. 82; 88 N.......
- McCollum v. Price
-
Harbour v. Harbour
...becomes absolutely her property. Wood v. Wood, 140 S. W. 275; Womack v. Womack, 73 Ark. 281, 83 S. W. 937, 1136; O'Hair v. O'Hair, 76 Ark. 389, 88 S. W. 945. It is true this presumption is not conclusive, and may be rebutted by evidence of facts, antecedent to and contemporaneous with the c......