Roberts v. Opp
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Citation | 1870 WL 6472,56 Ill. 34 |
| Parties | DANIEL ROBERTSv.MARGARET OPP. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. SABIN D. PUTERBAUGH, Judge, presiding.
This was a suit in chancery, instituted by Margaret Opp against Daniel Roberts, to compel the conveyance to her of one-half interest in certain lands, and a transfer of a like interest in certain promissory notes held by the defendant.
The facts upon which the claim for the relief sought is based, are fully set forth in the opinion of the court. Upon a hearing, the court below decreed that the complainant was entitled to one-half the land and of the notes, and thereupon the defendant took this appeal.
Messrs. JOHNSON & HOPKINS, and Mr. S. C. CONWELL, for the appellant.
Messrs. COOPER & MOSS, for the appellee.
In 1813, John Roberts, the father of these parties, being seized of a house and lot situate in Berks county, Penn., died, leaving Margaret Roberts, his widow, and Daniel and Margaret, these parties, his only children, him surviving. By his will he devised this property to his widow during life, remainder in fee to his two children in equal shares. In January, 1837, the widow and these two children joining in the deed, the property was sold for $700. Margaret, the daughter, was then unmarried, but did not relinquish her interest in the proceeds. The family all moved to Ohio, where a purchase was made of another homestead, being a house and six acres of land, for the price of $1,100, upon which the amount realized from the sale of the other property was paid, and to pay the balance and for other purposes, the sum of $450 was borrowed, and secured by mortgage on the place. With the consent of appellant and appellee, the title was taken in the mother's name. In 1840, appellee was married to Opp, and left home a short distance. In 1842, the Ohio property was sold for the same price given for it, the purchaser assuming the mortgage of $450, and paying the balance. Soon after, the lands in question in this suit were purchased for the sum of $650, and all parties moved into this State, Daniel and his mother living together upon one parcel of it, and Margaret and her husband living elsewhere. It appears that at the time of the sale of the Ohio property, there was much depreciated paper money in use, and the principal part of the amount received from the sale, was in such money; so that the widow had only about half of the amount of the consideration of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...237. (5) This action seeks to declare a constructive trust as distinguished from a resulting trust. Perry on Trusts, sec. 127; Roberts v. Opp, 56 Ill. 34; Musham Musham, 87 Ill. 80. (6) A purchaser from a trustee, who has acquired the trust property, stand in no better position than the tru......
-
Paluszek v. Wohlrab
...Clark, 398 Ill. 592, 76 N.E.2d 446; Houdek v. Ehrenberger, 397 Ill. 62, 72 N.E.2d 837; Brod v. Brod, 390 Ill. 312, 61 N.E.2d 675; Roberts v. Opp, 56 Ill. 34. In the typical case the resulting trust rests upon the assumed probability that the payor did not intend to make a gift of the proper......
-
Harris v. McIntyre
...of frauds. Mahoney v. Mahoney, 65 Ill. 406;Wilson v. Byers, 77 Ill. 76;Smith v. Smith, 85 Ill. 189;Loften v. Witboard, 92 Ill. 461;Roberts v. Opp, 56 Ill. 34;Boyd v. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. 582; Story, Eq. Jur. § 1201. The grantee, with notice, of a trustee under a resulting trust, stands in h......
-
Baldwin v. Sager
...and override his claim, and leave the purchaser to get his money back as best he can? This rule was applied in the case of Roberts v. Opp, 56 Ill. 34. In that case, the complainant, although held to have an interest in the land, was required to take her interest in the unpaid notes given fo......