Logan v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 29 October 1894
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LIZZIE LOGAN v. DELAWARE JOHNSON ET AL

16 So. 231

72 Miss. 185

LIZZIE LOGAN v. DELAWARE JOHNSON ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 29, 1894

FROM the chancery court of Yazoo county. HON. H. C. CONN Chancellor.

Appeal by complainants from an adverse decree. The opinion contains a statement of the facts bearing upon the only point decided.

Decree affirmed.

Hudson & Perrin, for appellant.

The decree appealed from is contrary both to the law and the facts. The evidence shows that complainant furnished the money to purchase and improve the land, and that the title was taken in her father's name for her benefit. It makes no difference whether the money ever reached her hands provided it was agreed that the indebtedness from Johnson to Logan was to be satisfied in the transaction. Robinson v LeFlore, 59 Miss. 148.

While a resulting trust must be proved with clearness and certainty there is no more certain proof than the direct testimony of the parties to the transaction. Admissions of the parties sought to be charged are sufficient. 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., p. 49; 1 Bax. (Tenn.), 120; 20 Pa. 308; 38 Mo. 36. Besides, there are certain earmarks which show the existence of the trust. We contend that a consideration of all the evidence establishes the right of complainant.

Where the claim to a resulting trust has been delayed, it becomes a mere question of intention on the part of the claimant. House v. Harden, 52 Miss. 860.

Barnett & Thompson, for appellees,

Filed a brief devoted to the facts, contending that the evidence was wholly insufficient to establish a resulting trust.

OPINION

COOPER, C. J.

The decree of the chancellor must be affirmed. It is evident that the complainant and the defendant, Delaware Johnson, have made common cause against the defendant, Amelia Johnson, in whom the title of the land, as to which a resulting trust is sought to be established for the complainant, is now vested. The facts from which the trust is supposed to result are testified to by the complainant and by Delaware Johnson, and there is a radical variance in their statements. The complainant testified that she owned a horse which her father traded for a bale of cotton, which cotton he sold, and with its proceeds, under her direction, bought the land for her and as hers, taking title in himself to protect the complainant from her improvident and intemperate husband. Delaware Johnson testifies that the horse was the property of complainant's husband, James Logan,...