Holt v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 21 April 1910
• Citation: 166 Ala. 358,52 So. 323
• Parties: HOLT v. JOHNSON ET AL. HOLT ET AL. v. MCEVOY ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

52 So. 323

166 Ala. 358

HOLT v. JOHNSON ET AL.

HOLT ET AL. v. MCEVOY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 21, 1910

Appeal from Chancery Court, Mobile County; Thomas H. Smith Chancellor.

Actions by William T. Holt against Rosa A. Johnson and others, and by William A. Holt and others against Elizabeth McEvoy and others. From decrees for defendants in both cases, the plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Frederick G. Bromberg, for appellants.

Sullivan & Stallworth, for appellees.

McCLELLAN J.

These bills were filed by appellants, the husband and the next of kin and heirs at law of Mary Jane (Jennie) Holt, née McEvoy to have declared and enforced primarily resulting trusts in certain real property, on the theory that funds of Mrs. Holt were employed by Mrs. Ann McEvoy, her mother and the mother of the respondents (appellees), in the several purchases of the real property described in the bills, and to which Mrs McEvoy took the title in her own name. There are also phases of the bills seeking the imposition of a charge on the McEvoy homestead to reimburse the successors in right of Mrs. Holt for funds belonging to her which were devoted to the permanent improvement of the homestead premises, and, also, to secure the possession of a piano alleged to have been paid for out of funds belonging to Mrs. Holt. There is not, as indeed there could not be, any real contention as to the law of the cases. The controverted issue is the same in both. It is of fact purely. The resolution of this issue will determine the equities of both.

The part of the transcript devoted to setting out the testimony, pro and con, covers upwards of 90 closely typewritten pages, and the very helpful discussion by the solicitors in the cause of the evidence bearing on the issue comprises upwards of 60 closely typewritten pages of large dimensions. The whole testimony has been most carefully read and considered, and the discussions of the solicitors have received like attention. From this volume of record matter, dealing with circumstances and events, personal acts and conduct, covering 20 years or more, it is apparent that a full treatment in opinion of the evidence in the cause is impossible. The solicitors and ourselves must in view of the evident necessity be content with the chiefly general statements and conclusions to follow.

The theory of the bill invokes a familiar phase of equity jurisprudence, viz., the establishment and enforcement of an implied trust. Such implied trusts reckon the legal title in another, and to avoid the conveyance, in cases of the character here presented, and to establish the trust resting, as it does, entirely in parol, it is well understood that the evidence must be "strong and unequivocal, and of such character as to disclose the exact rights and relations of the parties" (Jones on Ev. [ 2d Ed.] § 422); or, as said in Lehman v. Lewis, 62 Ala. 133, the proof "must be clear, full, and satisfactory and convincing"; or, as written in 1 Perry on Trusts, § 137, "the facts in all cases (of the character in hand) must be proved with great clearness and certainty * * * and facts that only base a conjecture that the conditions of a resulting trust existed are insufficient." While the measure of certainty indicated is always requisite, yet that measure does not require the "clearest and most positive proof" of the existence of conditions of a resulting trust. 1 Perry on Trusts, § 137. The satisfaction of the mind of the trior of the facts will suffice.

In 1880 Owen McEvoy died, leaving a widow, Ann McEvoy, and the following children in the order of their ages: Jennie, Rosa James, John, Lizzie, and Patrick. He possessed a lot in Mobile on which they then resided. The family was poor, at least after the father's death. Jennie about that time entered on an apprenticeship with a dressmaker, Mrs. Loyd. She worked there, either as an apprentice or at her trade, until a few days before her marriage to William T. Holt, in 1886. Soon thereafter--whether from a small beginning theretofore made by Jennie and Rosa during times not demanded in the service of Mrs. Loyd is in our opinion not important--the business concern above referred to seems to have come into well-defined existence. Its place was in the McEvoy home. It grew with the years, and in two or three years after Mrs. Holt's marriage was of considerable size, and had a large clientele among the most prominent and æsthetic people of the city of Mobile. While the evidence shows without any real doubt that Mrs. McEvoy was after the death of her husband the dominant, managing head of the household (not the business), it is just as well demonstrated in the evidence that the chief asset of the business concern named before was the unusual skill and taste of Mrs. Holt as a maker of apparel for women. So, if the controversy here could be determined by the response to the inquiry who afforded the real basis for popular favor, and, in consequence, the profitable (in business) enterprise,...