Johnson v. Quarles

• Decision Date: 31 August 1870
• Citation: 46 Mo. 423
• Parties: SARAH Q. JOHNSON et al., Defendants in Error, v. PATSEY QUARLES et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

46 Mo. 423

SARAH Q. JOHNSON et al., Defendants in Error,

v.PATSEY QUARLES et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1870.

Error to Fifth District Court.

T. A. Green, for plaintiffs in error.

I. A resulting trust is created by operation of law where the purchase money is paid by one party and the conveyance taken in the name of another. (Payne v. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 580; Valle v. Bryan, 19 Mo. 423; Rankin v. Harper, 23 Mo. 579; Kelly v. Johnson, 28 Mo. 249; Cloud v. Ivie, id. 578; Baumgartner v. Guessfeld, 38 Mo. 36; Hill. Trust. 92, and notes; Thompson v. Renoe, 12 Mo. 157; Dyer v. Dyer, 1 Lead. Cas. in Eq. 200-1; 5 Abb. N. Y. Dig. 248-9, 268.)

II. A resulting trust can be proved by parol evidence, and the admissions of the party holding the legal title are proper evidence as to who paid the purchase money. (Baumgartner v. Guessfeld, 38 Mo. 38; Hill. Trust. 94-6; Leach v. Leach, 10 Ves. 517; Madison v. Andrews, 1 Ves. 58; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121; Page v. Page, 8 N. H. 187; 2 Blackf. 441; 4 Blackf. 590; Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. 364; Peebles v. Reading, 17 Penn. 216; 8 Serg. & R. 492; Irving v. Ives, 7 Ind. 308; 30 Mo. 121; Am. Law Reg., Sept. '66, p. 675.)

III. The statute (Wagn. Stat. 1372, § 1) does not apply to this case. It only refers to cases where there has been a contract, either express or implied, entered into, and one of the original parties thereto is dead. This is a case in which Henry P. Poindexter was guilty of a fraud--a wrong, or a violation of confidence and trust--and his heirs are attempting to reap the benefits of his fraud.

W. Judson, for defendants in error.

I. Where it is sought, in the face of an absolute deed, to establish an implied trust by parol evidence alone, the beneficiary's ownership of the purchase money must be clearly proved by undoubted evidence. (Farrington v. Barr, 36 N. H. 86; Brown's Stat. Frauds, § 91; 1 Lomax's Dig. 204; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 126.)

II. After the death of the nominal purchaser of real property, proof of his declarations while living, that he purchased the property with money belonging to the alleged cestui que trust, is not alone sufficient to create a resulting trust. (Snelling v. Utterback, 1 Bibb, 609.)

III. Neither Alexander B. Halladay nor his wife, Patsey Q. Halladay, are competent witnesses in this case--Poindexter, one of the parties to the original cause of action, being dead. (Wagn. Stat. 1372, § 1; Stanton v. Ryan, 41 Mo. 510.) Mrs. Patsey Q. Halladay testifying in behalf of her husband without bringing herself within the qualifying provisions of the statute, is an incompetent witness. (Wagn. Stat. 1373, § 5; Hardy v. Matthews, 42 Mo. 406.)

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs filed in the Circuit Court of Buchanan county a petition for partition of certain town lots in the city of St. Joseph, owned by them and the defendants, originally named as heirs of Henry P. Poindexter, deceased, late of Richmond, Virginia. Upon their own motion, Patsey Quarles and A. P. Halladay are made parties, and set up a claim to the whole property, alleging that the said Poindexter purchased it with their money, and, without their consent, took a conveyance to himself. This allegation was denied, and, upon hearing, the Circuit Court found it unsustained by the evidence, and gave judgment of partition between the original parties, which judgment was affirmed in the District Court.

Were this one of those questions, so far as the main fact is concerned, upon which the court would be bound to carefully weigh and decide upon the preponderance of evidence, we might perhaps be warranted in saying that the money used by Poindexter in the purchase of the lots probably belonged to Mrs. Quarles, or to her and Halladay. But it is not thus that the strong presumption arising from a deed can be rebutted. There is no doubt that a trust will ordinarily result in favor of one whose money is used by another in the purchase of land, when the conveyance is taken to himself instead of the person who furnished the money; nor is there any doubt that the facts that create the trust may be proved by parol. For a long time the courts refused, and they have always hesitated, to permit the language of a deed to be thus contradicted, and a title created contrary to the statute of frauds. But while admitting such evidence for the purpose of creating this resulting trust, the chancellor has always required that it be clear and unequivocal. The insecurity of titles and the temptation to perjury, among the chief reasons demanding that contracts affecting lands should be made in writing, also imperatively require that trusts arising by operation of law should not be declared upon any doubtful evidence, or even upon a mere preponderance of evidence. There should be no room for a reasonable doubt as to the facts relied upon. (Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121; Malin v. Malin, 1 Wend. 625; Sewall v. Baxter, 2 Md. Ch. 447; Hollida v. Shoop, 4 Md. 465; Boyd v. McLane, 1 Johns. Ch. 582; Enos v. Hunter, 9 Ill. 211.)

Was there, then, such clear and unequivocal evidence that the purchase money of the property in question belonged to Mrs. Quarles and Mr. Halladay as to authorize a declaration of trust in their favor? Affirmatively, there are several witnesses who testify that Poindexter failed in business in 1837 and lost everything; that he was assisted by the defendant, Mrs. Quarles, and that for some twenty-five years before his death, which happened in 1863, he managed her business, including the carrying on of a large farm in Spottsylvania county; that the farm yielded a net income of some $6,000 a year; that he received for his services no special salary or proportion of profits, but lived on the most intimate and friendly terms with his aunt, and was permitted to spend and appropriate whatever he chose. They, or some of them, also testify that Poindexter said at different times that he had purchased and was about to purchase land in Missouri for his aunt, and also that he said that Halladay had furnished part of the money; and one or two identified the land spoken of as lots in St. Joseph. All the evidence as to the material fact that he used the money of the present claimants of the land, and purchased for them, consisted in testimony as to his declarations while living, as to his insolvency in 1837, and as to his being the general manager of Mrs. Quarles' business.

Before considering the evidence and circumstances that rebut the present claim of Mrs. Quarles, it should be remarked that all the evidence that Poindexter used her money in making the purchase in question, is hearsay and inconclusive in its character. Our experience shows the ease with which the declarations of a deceased person may be proved, and warns us not to place too great reliance upon them. Evidence of such declarations, it is true, is admissible, but it never amounts to direct proof of the facts claimed to have been admitted by those declarations; and it is sometimes doubted whether it ought to be received at all when introduced for the purpose of divesting a title created by deed. If, however, these declarations were properly sustained by...