Martin v. Baird

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 18, 1896

Martin v. Baird, 175 Pa. 540 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 809; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1285

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

After a careful examination and study of the record in this case we are convinced that the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the opinion of the learned court below are correct, and should be sustained. While it is apparent that the parties intended to form a partnership it is manifest that it was a partnership to be formed in the future. It is equally clear that in point of fact the partnership never was formed. The negotiations to that end were never completed and did not .reach to an actual agreement. Without going into details, it is sufficient to say that we approve of the findings of fact and law as expressed in the opinion, and upon those findings we affirm the decree.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name: John H. Martin v. William Baird
Cited By: 10 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Trusts and trustees — Act of April 22, 1856 — Evidence. Under the act of April 22, 1856, P. L. 532, when a trust is set up, the written evidence thereof signed by the party holding the legal title should contain within itself all that is necessary to enable a chancellor to declare the trust and to make a decree in favor of the beneficiary, and parol evidence cannot be introduced to supply any missing link in the chain of testimony. The plaintiff owned a one fourth interest in a hotel property. Defendant proposed to purchase the property, and to associate himself with the plaintiff in partnership to carry on the business of the hotel. Prior to the sale defendant signed the following agreement: “ I hereby agree to pay the sum of seventy thousand dollars or more for the Riverside hotel property, to be purchased either at public or private sale, under the conditions set forth in the decree as advertised by the master appointed by the court. I further agree that should I become the purchaser to sell or transfer to J. H. Martin (the plaintiff), now owner of a one-fourth interest in said property, a quarter upon the same basis as price paid and same terms of payment.” The sale of the propertjr was made, and a deed executed to defendant. The court found as a fact that the property was bought by the defendant with the understanding that the title to the whole should be conveyed to him, and that no conveyance should be made to the plaintiff until the partnership had been formed by articles of agreement in writing signed by the parties. Plaintiff and defendant failed to agree upon partnership articles. Held, that the memorandum in writing signed by the defendant was insufficient to establish a trust in favor of plaintiff as to any part of the premises purchased by defendant. Trusts and trustees — Resulting trust — Fraud—Evidence. The evidence to establish a resulting trust, especially one arising ex maleficio which is an imputation of fraud, should be clear, explicit and unequivocal. Plaintiff owned one fourth interest in a hotel property. Defendant proposed to buy the property, and he and the plaintiff entered into negotiations to form a partnership to carry on the business of the hotel. Prior to the sale the defendant signed a memorandum by which he agreed to sell to the plaintiff a quarter interest upon the same basis as he purchased the property. The sale was made, and the plaintiff with the other owners conveyed the property to the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant could not agree upon terms of partnership, and no partnership was actually formed. The evidence showed that there was no fraud or deception pi'acticed by the defendant. It did not appear that the plaintiff parted with his interest in the property on the inducement of the contemplated partnership. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to show a resulting trust in plaintiff’s favor.