Harrison. v. Harrison

• Citation: 107 N.E. 128,265 Ill. 432
• Decision Date: 16 December 1914
• Docket Number: No. 9697.,9697.
• Parties: HARRISON. v. HARRISON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

265 Ill. 432

107 N.E. 128

HARRISON.

v.HARRISON et al.

No. 9697.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 16, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Thomas M. Jett, Judge.

Suit by Jennie E. Harrison against Helen E. Harrison and another. Judgment for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John S. Stonecipher and Kagy & Vandervort, all of Salem, for appellants.

George W. Smith, of Salem, and Jonas & Haley, of Centralia, for appellee.

DUNN, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Marion county setting aside a deed, upon a bill filed by the appellee, Jennie E. Harrison, against the appellants, Helen E. Harrison and Peter L. Guth.

The bill alleged that on September 16, 1911, the appellee purchased two lots in Salem, Ill., for $700, for which she paid cash; that at that time she was unmarried, and was engaged to marry Haste E. Harrison, a son of the appellant Helen E. Harrison, by reason whereof she consented that the title to the premises for the time being should be placed in Helen E. Harrison in trust for her, whereupon, in consideration of the sum of money paid by the appellee, the premises were conveyed to Helen E. Harrison. After the conveyance the appellee took possession of the premises, and ever since has been in possession thereof, with the full knowledge and consent of Helen E. Harrison, who has never exercised or claimed to exercise any right of ownership or possession, but has always assented that the premises were, in truth and in fact, the property of the appellee. On December 27, 1913, while the appellee was in possession of the premises as owner, living therein with her husband and family, Helen E. Harrison, without consideration, executed to Peter L. Guth, who was her son-in-law, a warranty deed for the premises, and said Peter L. Guth received and accepted such deed, then and there knowing that the appellee was, in fact, the owner thereof, and that Helen E. Harrison held title thereto in trust for the appellee.

[1] The evidence sustains the allegations of the bill. It is admitted that Helen E. Harrison did not purchase the property, paid nothing for it, never was in possession of or claimed any interest in, the premises, or exercised any acts of ownership over them, and that the appellee actually paid all the money that was paid for the purchase of them. It was shown, without contradiction, that the appellee took possession of the premises immediately after the purchase, has made improvements on them, and has since occupied them as a residence with Haste E. Harrison, whom she married after the conveyance. The appellant Guth had knowledge of her ownership, both by the fact of her possession and by actual notice. Where land is purchased, and the consideration is paid with the money of one person, but the title is taken in the name of another, a resulting trust arises in favor of the person whose money paid for the land. Bruce v. Roney, 18 Ill. 67;Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 148 Ill. 9, 35 N. E. 383;Brennaman v. Schell, 212 Ill. 356, 72 N. E. 412;Lord v. Reed, 254 Ill. 350, 98 N. E. 553, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 139;Froemke v. Marks, 259 Ill. 146, 102 N. E. 192.

The appellants contend that Haste E. Harrison paid the consideration which was paid when the deed was made, and that the appellee had no means with which to make such payment. The appellee received the money which was paid, or a part of it, from Haste E. Harrison. There is no contradiction in the evidence that whatever money she received from him he delivered to her for her own, whether in payment of a debt or otherwise. After she received the money it was hers. The source from which it came was immaterial, and if she used it in the purchase of this property she is entitled to the property. Lord v. Reed, supra.

[2]It is argued that the bill alleges an express trust, and that, where an express...