Shaw v. Shaw

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: SHERWOOD
• Citation: 86 Mo. 594
• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Parties: SHAW, Appellant, v. SHAW.

86 Mo. 594

SHAW, Appellant,
v.
SHAW.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1885.

[86 Mo. 595]

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

REVERSED.

Lackland & Wilson for appellant.

(1) When a person has money of another in his hands and purchases real estate with it and takes the deed in his own name, a resulting trust arises in favor of the one who advances the money in whole or in part. The resulting trust arises, whether the money is put into the hands of the alleged trustee expressly for the purpose of buying the land, or whether the alleged trustee, having the money already in his hands for another purpose, invests it in land in his own name, without the knowledge of the owner of the money. “A similar rule prevails in cases where the consideration proceeds from two or more jointly, and the conveyance is taken in the name of one of them only. A resulting trust will arise in favor of the parties not named in the conveyance, in proportion to the amount of the consideration which they may have respectively contributed.” Hill Trustees, 92, side page, and note; 38 Mo. 41. The statute of frauds is intended to prevent frauds, and not to promote and sustain frauds. R. S. 1879, sec. 2512; Stephenson v. Smith, 7 Mo. 610; Rankin v. Harper, 23 Mo. 579; Baumgart

[86 Mo. 596]

ner v. Guessfield, 38 Mo. 36, 41; Thomson v. Reuse, 12 Mo. 157; Rose v. Bates, 12 Mo. 30, 51; Paul v. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 580; Valle v. Bryan, 19 Mo. 423; Grove's Heirs v. Fulsome, 16 Mo. 543; Carman v. Johnson, 20 Mo. 108, 110; Cason v. Cason, 28 Mo. 47; Kelly v. Johnson, 28 Mo. 249; Key v. Jennings, 66 Mo. 366; 2 Story's Equity, sec. 1201, 634-636 (6 Ed.); Hale v. Stuart, 76 Mo. 20, 22; Buren v. Buren, 79 Mo. 538. (2) The findings of the trial court are fully and clearly sustained by the evidence in this case, and this court will defer somewhat to the findings of such court on matters of fact, even in equity cases. Ryan v. Young, 79 Mo. 34; Hendricks v. Woods, 79 Mo. 599; Boyle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 406; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 43; Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 336. The finding of a chancellor will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, unless he has manifestly disregarded the evidence. Snell v. Harrison, 83 Mo. 651; Ford v. Phillips, 83 Mo. 523. (3) There is no legal bill of exceptions in this case. The court had no right to allow the bill of exceptions to be filed after the appeal was granted. There was no agreement between counsel or consent of court, and the court had lost jurisdiction by granting the appeal. A new paper cannot be filed in the case after an appeal is taken ( Ladd v. Couzins, 35 Mo. 513, 515; Stewart v. Stringer, 41 Mo. 400), and the power of the inferior court over the subject is exhausted. Bril v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358.

T. F. McDearmon for respondent.

(1) “To warrant the destruction of a legal title by decree of a resulting trust, the proof should be of the most conclusive character.” Sharp v. Berry, 60 Mo. 575; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 57 Mo. 73; Ringo v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 394; Forrister v. Scoville, 51 Mo. 268; Johnson v. Quarles, 46 Mo. 423; Snelling v. Utterback, 1 Bibb, 609; Baker v. Aining,...