King v. Isley

• Decision Date: 22 May 1893
• Citation: 22 S.W. 634,116 Mo. 155
• Parties: KING et al. v. ISLEY et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

22 S.W. 634

116 Mo. 155

KING et al. v. ISLEY et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 22, 1893.

TRUSTS — ACTION TO ESTABLISH — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In an action to establish a resulting trust in certain land by the heirs of one C.,

the alleged cestui que trust, the evidence for plaintiffs consisted mainly of the casual statements of the alleged trustee and C., testified to years after it was claimed they were made, by witnesses, many of whom were interested. This evidence was contradicted by defendants' witnesses, who were less in number than plaintiffs'. Defendants put in evidence the written contract between them and their grantor, which recited all the terms of the sale, and was witnessed by C. They also introduced their trust deed to the grantor, securing deferred payments, as provided for in such contract, and evidence of payment of the same by them. Held, that a judgment for defendants was proper.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; R. H. Field, Judge.

Action by Rufus King and others, against Nancy Isley and Phillip Isley, her husband, to establish a trust in certain real estate, the title to which is in defendant Nancy Isley. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

C. O. Tichenor and Teasdale, Ingraham & Cowherd, for appellants. Edward H. Styles, for respondents.

BRACE, J.

By general warranty deed, duly executed and acknowledged, and dated the 25th day of September, A. D. 1880, Hiram T King and wife, of Rochester, N. Y., for the consideration of $2,500, conveyed to Nancy Isley two lots in the city of Kansas, in fee simple absolute. At the January term, 1888, of the Jackson county circuit court, this suit was instituted by the plaintiffs — who are the brothers, and some of the other heirs at law, of Clement Clay King, who died intestate, without lineal descendants, on the 24th of April, 1881 — against the said Nancy Isley, a sister of said Clement Clay King, and her husband, charging that said lots were purchased and paid for by the said Clement Clay King, and the title aforesaid taken in the name of the said Nancy Isley, to be held by her in trust for said Clement Clay King and his heirs, and that the said Nancy afterwards, for a large sum of money, sold and conveyed said lots to one Martin Jones; and praying for a decree declaring such trust, and for an accounting. The case was heard upon the merits, the issues found for the defendants, the bill dismissed, and plaintiffs appeal.

A vast amount of evidence was taken at the trial, all of which we have carefully read and considered, in order to dispose of the only question for our determination, and that is whether the finding of the chancellor is supported by the legal evidence in the case, as it appears in the large printed volume before us. The plaintiffs undertook to establish the alleged trust by parol evidence of the weakest character, — the casual statements of the defendants and of Clement Clay King, in the main uncertain and equivocal, testified to by witnesses (many of them interested) years after the conversations were had in which they are said to have been made. In regard to the character of the parol evidence necessary to create a resulting trust, such as is contended for here, this court has ever held no uncertain language. "The rule in this court is settled by a uniform line of decisions that parol testimony, in order to accomplish such an object and secure such an end, must be clear, strong, and unequivocal, — so definite and positive as to leave no room for doubt in the mind of the chancellor as to the existence of such trust." Allen v. Logan, 96 Mo. 591, 10 S. W. Rep. 149. "These resulting trusts must not be declared upon doubtful evidence, or even upon a mere preponderance of evidence. There should be no...