Beringer v. Lutz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 7, 1898

Beringer v. Lutz, 188 Pa. 364 (Pa. 1898)

41 A. 643; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 617

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The charge of the learned court below was a careful and entirely correct presentation of the facts and law involved in *373the controversy. It contained a thorough explanation of the kind of testimony required to establish a resulting trust in the wife, so that the jury could not fail to have a correct understanding of the subject. There was testimony in support of the claim of a resulting trust, and that question was necessarily left to the determination of the jury. An examination of the testimony convinces us that the verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence given on the trial. We see no error in the assignments and they are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: G. W. Beringer and David Beringer, Executors of George Beringer v. Henrietta Lutz and Daniel Lutz, her husband
Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Husband and wife — Real estate — Resulting trust. The Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict in favor of a married woman in a proceeding by a sheriff’s vendee to recover possession of real estate, where the evidence tends strongly to show that title to the land in question'was taken by the defendant in the execution in his own name, but that his wife paid out of her separate estate a portion of the purchase money corresponding to the interest in the land awarded to her by the verdict, with the understanding that she was to have title to the land in proportion to the money paid by her, and that she did not know that her name was not mentioned in the deed.