Johnson v. Krassin
| Decision Date | 29 June 1878 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 117 |
| Parties | GEORGE P. JOHNSON <I>vs.</I> LOUIS KRASSIN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
B. S. Lewis, for appellant.
P. McGovern, for respondent.
It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff, by defendant's permission, purchased, in defendant's name, a town lot for two hundred and fifty dollars, paying seventy dollars thereon, and taking a contract of purchase in defendant's name, upon defendant's promise to hold the lot in trust for plaintiff, and to transfer the same to him when requested. It is further alleged that the defendant executed in duplicate the contract of purchase, and that he refused to deliver and assign the same to plaintiff when requested; and that in disregard of his promise, and without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff, he sold and assigned the contract, and all his right, title and interest in and to said lot, to one Masson, for a good and valuable consideration. The complaint further states that payment of said sum of seventy dollars has been demanded of defendant by plaintiff, but has been refused. This action is brought for the recovery of the same and interest.
From the form and character of the averments of the complaint in that behalf, the fair inference is that the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant rested in parol, and was not in writing. The facts set up in the complaint do not make out a case of a trust resulting by act or operation of law, because such resulting trust arises only upon an actual conveyance of land, and not upon an executory contract for such conveyance, or to hold land in trust. Green v. Drummond, 31 Md. 79; Browne on Frauds, § 84 (citing Page v. Page, 8 N. H. 187; Rogers v. Murray, 3 Paige, 390; Jackson v. Morse, 16 John. 199;) Sugden on Vendors, 701; Perry on Trusts, §§ 126, 133, 142; Durfee v. Pavitt, 14 Minn. 424. Neither do they make out an express trust, for that must be by deed or conveyance in writing, as provided in Gen. St. c. 41, § 10. Neither do they make out a case of a valid agreement for the conveyance of lands, or any interest therein, because no such agreement is expressed in writing as prescribed in Gen. St. c. 41, § 12, and no facts are alleged dispensing with the necessity of such writing, As the facts stated in the complaint do not make out either a resulting trust, or an express trust, or an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. State
...of title conveyed and eviction by superior title. See cases above cited; also Garber v. Armentrout, 32 Grat. [73 Va.] 235; Johnson v. Krassin, 25 Minn. 117; Walsh v. Rogers, 15 Neb. 309, 18 N. W. 135; Laws on Rights, Rem. & Pr. § 3691." See, also, Williams v. Finley, 99 Tex. 468, 90 S. W. 1......
-
Powers Mercantile Company v. Blethen
...that the plaintiff's remedy was not an action upon the notes, but one for money paid for the defendant's benefit at his request. Johnson v. Krassin, 25 Minn. 117. It suggested that there was no consideration for the defendant's implied promise to repay the amounts advanced by the plaintiff ......
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Lund
... ... convey it as his own. But this statute can have no ... application to the case at bar. It was held in Johnson v ... Krassin, 25 Minn. 117, that the statute cited has no ... application to executory contracts for the conveyance of ... land; and that case ... ...
-
Bastian v. Brink
...a purchaser to recover his purchase price from a grantee where A trust was intended and the grantee had refused performance (Johnson v. Krassin, 25 Minn. 117). ...