Witts v. Horney
| Decision Date | 07 March 1883 |
| Citation | 59 Md. 584 |
| Parties | EMMANUEL IRONS WITTS v. CHARLES T. HORNEY, and CHARLES T. HORNEY, administrator of ELIZABETH A. HORNEY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.
The appeal in this case was taken from a decree, passed by agreement of counsel, dismissing the bill of complaint. The case is stated in the opinion of this Court.
The cause was argued before MILLER, STONE, ALVEY, ROBINSON, and IRVING, J.
J Alexander Preston, for the appellant.
J Wilson Leakin, for the appellee.
There is no difficulty as to the law relating to resulting trusts. The numerous decisions of this Court upon the subject have placed it beyond controversy here. Where one party purchases an estate, and pays the money, and the deed is taken in the name of another, a trust results by construction of law to the party who paid the money, and such payment may be proved by parol; but in all such cases the proof of payment by the cestui que trust must be clear, direct, and explicit. This strictness of proof is required, because of the danger of rendering titles depending upon deeds and other written documents insecure. Such is the law as announced in all the cases, and we cite only the decisions of this Court. Dorsey vs. Clarke, 4 H. & J., 557; Faringer vs. Ramsay, 2 Md., 375; Hollida vs. Shoop, 4 Md., 474; Greer vs. Baughman, 13 Md., 268; Brawner vs Staup, 21 Md., 337; Cecil Bank vs Snively, 23 Md., 253; Dryden vs. Hanway, 31 Md., 254; Groff vs. Rohrer, 35 Md., 335; Keller vs. Keller, 45 Md., 274; McDonnell vs. Milholland, 48 Md., 544; Thomas vs. Standiford, 49 Md., 184.
In this case Samuel K. Dashiell, as administrator and guardian, and others, conveyed, by deed, dated the 10th of July, 1877, certain leasehold property to Elizabeth A. Horney, the wife of Charles T. Horney, for the consideration of $550. The property was sold under orders of the Orphans' Court, and the deed recites that the whole amount of the purchase money ($550) had been fully paid and satisfied by the purchaser, the said Elizabeth, and that it was executed for the purpose of vesting in her a good title by conveying to her the interests of all the parties in the property. Mrs. Horney had been married to one Witts, and had by him a son, the appellant. She was afterwards divorced from Witts and married Horney. Now the son, by his bill, claims that this property was purchased with his money, and that the same was, therefore, held by his mother in trust for him. On the other hand, Mrs. Horney having died, her surviving husband, Mr. Horney, insists that he is entitled to the property in his own right or as administrator of his deceased wife, and in both these capacities he is made a defendant to the bill.
The documentary proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank v. Carter
...resulting trust. Dorsey v. Clarke, 4 Har. & J. 551; Thomas v. Standiford, 49 Md. 182; Johnson v. Johnson, 96 Md. 144, 53 A. 792; Witts v. Horney, 59 Md. 584; Johns v. Carroll, 107 Md. 436, 69 A. 36; v. Watson, 129 Md. 497, 99 A. 675. It is therefore plain, upon the authorities, that the app......
-
Hughes v. McDougall
... ... Dec. 61. And nowhere among ... the adjudicated cases in this state has it been more ... succinctly stated than was done by Judge Miller in Witts ... v. Horney, 59 Md. 584, where he says, "The proof ... must be clear, direct and explicit." For this statement ... he cites, among other ... ...
-
Dixon v. Dixon
...name of another, a trust results by construction of law to the party who paid the money, and such payment may be proved by parol.' Witts v. Horney, 59 Md. 584. 'If only a part the purchase money be paid by a third party, there will be a resulting trust in his favor pro tanto.' 4 Kent, 306 (......
-
Johnston v. Johnston
...name of another, a trust results by construction of law to the party who paid the money, and such payment may be proved by parol." Witts v. Horney, 59 Md. 584. "If only a part the purchase money be paid by a third party, there will be a resulting trust in his favor pro tanto." 4 Kent, Comm.......