Evans v. McKee
Evans v. McKee
Opinion of the Court
The legal title to the premises in question never was in Alex. McKee. It was claimed, however, that the equitable title was in him by reason of a resulting trust. Such trust must result from the payment of the purchase money or by a fraud in obtaining the title. It was not pretended that the money was paid by Alex. McKee, or that his money was used in the transaction. It was not disputed that Jos. McKee paid for it with his own money. Nor are we able to see that any such fraud was practiced by the latter in obtaining the title as would make him a trustee ex-maleficio.
We think the learned judge below was right in excluding the declarations of Alex. McKee made after the sheriff’s sale. The defendant’s title could not be affected in this manner.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Besulting trust — Trust ex maleficio — Evidence—Declarations. Where a son, acting lor his lather, the plaintiff in an execution, purchases real estate at a sheriff’s sale for an inadequate price, but pays the purchase money out ol his own pocket, and the father by his subsequent conduct shows that he had knowledge ol the whole transaction, the son will not be declared a trustee ex maleficio for the father or the father’s heirs. ' In such a ease declarations made by the lather alter the sale, claiming the land as his own, are inadmissible as evidence of a resulting trust.