Skehill v. Abbott

• Decision Date: 02 September 1903
• Citation: 184 Mass. 145,68 N.E. 37
• Parties: SKEHILL v. ABBOTT et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

184 Mass. 145

68 N.E. 37

SKEHILL v. ABBOTT et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

September 2, 1903

COUNSEL

Vahey &

Innes, for appellants.

Lafayette G. Blair and Chas. J. Flagg, for appellee.

OPINION

LORING J.

This is a bill in equity by a widow, who claims an undivided two-fifths interest in a parcel of land by way of a resulting trust. The title to the land was taken in the name of her husband, now deceased, but she contributed $1,000 of the $2,500 which was paid for it. The judge who tried the case found these facts: The plaintiff was 60 years old, was not able to read or write, and was ignorant of business methods and the meaning of legal instruments. It was undertsood between the plaintiff and her husband that she should have the benefit of the $1,000 contributed by her to provide for her old age, and it was at first suggested that this should be effected by the husband's taking the title, and giving a mortgage to secure the payment of the $1,000. This was abandoned on the husband's reporting that a lawyer who was consulted by him said that there could no mortgage between husband and wife. The plaintiff then said that she wanted her name to be in the deed, and this was agreed to by the husband. In addition to these facts found by the judge there was evidence that the plaintiff not only stipulated that her name should appear in the deed, but what she insisted on was that it should appear in the deed for her interest in the property. The judge further found that, in place of keeping his agreement, the husband took the whole title in his own name, and the title remained in him until he died, and that although the plaintiff did not stipulate for an undivided two-fifths interest in terms, yet that was that was understood between the plaintiff and her husband, and it was on that understanding that she parted with her money. We are of opinion that this brings the case within Hayward v. Cain, 110 Mass. 273, and takes it out of McGowan v. McGowan, 14, Gray, 119, 74 Am. Dec. 668; Snow v Paine, 114 Mass. 520; Bourke v. Callanan, 160 Mass. 195, 35 N.E. 460; and Dudley v. Dudley, 176 Mass. 34, 56 N.E. 1011. See, also, Bancroft v Curtis, 108 Mass. 47; McDonough v. O'Neil, 113 Mass. 92.

The defendants contend that unless a plaintiff has stipulated for such a fraction as is contained in the whole without a remainder no resulting trust can be created; that is to say if one person contributes $500 where the purchase money is $2,500, stipulating for an undivided fifth interest, a resulting trust is raised in his favor, but if he has...