Motherwell v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 08 March 1886
• Citation: 2 Idaho 254,10 P. 304
• Parties: MOTHERWELL ET AL. v. TAYLOR
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

10 P. 304

2 Idaho 254

MOTHERWELL ET AL. v. TAYLOR

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 8, 1886

RESULTING TRUST-WHEN RAISED.-A resulting trust is raised only when there is fraud in the acquisition of title, or where the money of one is used to pay for real property, the title to which is taken in the name of another at the time said title is taken, and neither a promise to pay nor after-payment will give rise to such a trust.

APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County.

Affirmed.

J. B Roseborough and L. Vineyard, for Appellants.

Defendant claims that when he made the purchase the Snow Fly was of no value, and the Davitt of small value; this only goes to the extent, and not to the fact and quality, of the fraud. Here also, his acts refute his word, for soon afterward he bought and paid $ 1,000 for a quarter of the latter without any new developments in either claim. Defendant, acting in the fiduciary relations aforesaid, having invested the means of the partnership loaned and advanced by him in the purchase of the interests in both claims, and taken a deed to half the Snow Fly in his own name, a resulting trust arose as to that which fastens itself upon his conscience against his wishing and intentions, in favor of these plaintiffs, and he is bound to share with them the profits thus derived in course of the trust. (2 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1258-1260; Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 441; 1 Perry on Trusts, secs. 124, 125, 128.)

George H. Roberts and F. E. Ensign, for Respondent.

It is claimed that certain of the findings are not supported by the evidence. There is no material point in the case in which there is not a substantial conflict in the testimony. Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the supreme court will not disturb the decision of the court below. (Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, sec. 288, and cases cited; Doe v. Vallejo, 29 Cal. 390.) The appellate court will not disturb a judgment or verdict, or order denying a new trial, where there is a substantial conflict in the testimony, and no rule of law appears to have been violated. (Mootry v. Hawley, 1 Idaho, 543; Cox v. N.W. Stage Co., 1 Idaho 376.)

HAYS C. J. Buck and Broderick, JJ., concurring.

OPINION

HAYS, C. J.

This action was brought to declare a partnership and a resulting trust in favor of the plaintiffs in certain mining property. The theory of the plaintiffs was that a mining partnership was entered into between plaintiffs and defendant, Frank Taylor, about the first day of August, 1882; and it is alleged by plaintiffs that at the same time defendant agreed to negotiate for, and if possible buy in, for the partnership, of one Joseph Taylor, a conflicting claim called the "Far West," in the Davitt mine; that on or about the eighteenth day of August, 1882, the defendant purchased said claim, together with an interest in the "Snow Fly" claim, then a prospect, for $ 600; that the said sum of $ 600 was by defendant loaned or advanced to the partnership, and security taken therefor upon the ores upon the dump and in sight in the Davitt mine; that afterward the $ 600 so paid for the interest in the claim was repaid to Frank Taylor from the proceeds of the Davitt mine; that defendant, Frank Taylor, had fraudulently concealed from the plaintiffs the fact that he (defendant) had purchased an interest in the Snow Fly, and that plaintiffs did not ascertain the fact for more than a year after the transaction. The...