Miles v. Rhodes, 4 Div. 480.

• Decision Date: 18 December 1930
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 480.
• Citation: 222 Ala. 208,131 So. 633
• Parties: MILES v. RHODES ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

131 So. 633

222 Ala. 208

MILES v. RHODES ET AL.

4 Div. 480.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 18, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W. L. Parks, Judge.

Bill in equity by A. L. Miles against M. S. Rhodes and others, to declare a trust in lands, with a cross-bill by respondents. From a decree for respondents, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Owen &amp Carmichael and W. M. Brunson, all of Elba, and Wilkerson &amp Brannen, of Troy, for appellant.

P. B Traweek, of Elba, for appellees.

BOULDIN J.

The suit was begun by statutory ejectment. The defendant claiming an equitable title, caused a removal of the cause to the equity docket, where it proceeded by bill setting up the alleged equitable title, the original plaintiffs being the respondents and cross-complainants in equity.

In 1900 the lands in suit, a tract of seventy-six acres, were conveyed by deed of R. P. Brooks to A. L. Rhodes on a recited cash consideration of $220. The grantee and his wife, Lizzie Rhodes, occupied the place as a homestead until the husband's death in 1908. Thereafter, Lizzie Rhodes, the widow, continued in the possession and occupancy until about 1924. She died in 1927, and in 1928 the heirs at law of A. L. Rhodes, his children of a former marriage, and their descendants, brought the suit in ejectment against A. L. Miles.

Lizzie Rhodes was again married to William Bullard, and in 1922 they executed a warranty deed purporting to pass the fee to R. C. Mitchell. Mr. Miles deraigns title through mesne conveyances from Mr. Mitchell, and was in possession at the time of Lizzie (Rhodes) Bullard's death, and at the time suit in ejectment was begun.

Mr. Miles, complainant in equity, seeks to set up and establish a resulting trust in the lands dating back to 1900.

The contention is that the purchase money paid for the lands when acquired from Brooks was the money of the wife; and the resulting trust in her favor inures to her grantee and his successors in title.

A resulting trust, a creature of equity, based on the presumption that he who furnishes the consideration for the purchase of lands intends the purchase for his own benefit, is subject to the statute of limitations of ten years (Code 1923, § 8943).

In cases of husband and wife, the possession, in the absence of averment and proof to the contrary, is referred to the legal title, and the statute may run as between them. Brackin v. Newman, 121 Ala. 311, 26 So. 3; Haney v. Legg, 129 Ala. 619, 30 So. 34, 87 Am. St. Rep. 81; Martin v. Kelly, 132 Ala. 201, 31 So. 476; Chambless v. Kennamer, 214 Ala. 293, 107 So. 908.

Whether the statute of limitations or the oft-applied doctrine of laches and stale demands should conclude complainant under the pleadings and proof, we need not decide.

"In order to ingraft a resulting trust on an absolute conveyance of lands the proof must be clear, full, satisfactory and convincing. If it is uncertain, doubtful, or unsatisfactory, relief cannot be granted." 2 Pomery Eq. § 1400; Lehman v. Lewis, 62 Ala. 129; Dooly v. Pinson, 145 Ala. 659, 39 So. 664.

A careful study of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that this burden has not been met.

Without question Lizzie Rhodes had knowledge that the title was taken in the name of the husband some years before his death. No living witness to the original transaction survives. The only direct evidence that Lizzie Rhodes's money paid for the land relates to a part payment of $80 which the witness says she handed her husband to pay on the land some time after the purchase. This is insufficient to create a resulting trust.

It must arise at the time title passes. The basic principle upon which the trust arises is investment of the funds of one in the purchase of land, title being taken in the name of another.

If no money was so invested at the time of the purchase, when title taken, a subsequent...