Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-07-02
SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS OF CASES FILED JESTER
D4Y.
George +. johnson, appellant, rs. Louis Kras-
sin, Respondent.

sin, Respondent.
OPINION.
1t is alleged in the complaint that the plain
tiff, by defendants permission. purchased in
defendants name town lot for two hundred
and fifty dollars, paying seventy dollars thereon
and taking contract of purchase i'll defend
ants name upon defendants promise to hold
the lots in trust for plaintiff. and to transfer
the same to him when requested. 1t is further
alleged that the defendant executed in dupli-
cate the contract of purchase and that he
fused to deliver and to assign the same to
plaintiff when requested, and that in disregard
OF his promise and without the consent or
knowledge OF the plaintiff he sold and assigned
the contract and all his right, title
and interest in and TO said
lot to one Kasson for good
and valuable consideration. The complaint
further states that payment of said sum OF
seventy dollars has been demanded of defeL-
dant by plaintiff but has been refused.
This action is brought for the recovery of the
same and interest.
From the form and character OF the aver
ments of the com plant, in that behalfthe fair
inference is, that the alleged agreement be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant rested IN
parol and was not in writing. The facts set up
in the complaint do not naake out a case of a
trust, resulting by act or operation of law,
because such resulting trust arises only upon
an actual conveyance of land, and not upon an
executory contract for such conveyance, or to
hold land in trust. Green VS.. Dfummond, 81
Md, 49, Brown on Frauds, sec. 81 Getting Page
vs. Paige, s N. H., 1877; Rogers VS.. Murray, 3
Paige, $50; jackson VS., VS.; korse Is Johns, 1872
Snyder VS.. Vendors i70l; Perry on Trusts, Sec
1EH ISS l4S. Durfee PaSItt. IL
Mimi, 424. Neither do they make
out an express trust, for that must be by deed
| or conveyance in writing as provided in section
10, chapter Al, general statutes. Neither do
they make out case of a valid agreement for
| the conveyance OF lands or any interest, there
| in because no such agreement is expressed in
writing as prescribed in section II, chapter 4
general statutes, and no facts are alleged dis
! pensing with the necessity of such writing.
AS the facts stated in the complaint do not
! make out Ell her resulting trust an express
| trust or an agreement for conveyance, we are
| of opinion that there is no ground upon which
| it can justly be commended that the alleged
promise whether express or implied of the de-
PENDANT to transfer to the plaintiff was valid
and binding as imposing upon the defendant
any legal obligation to transfer or convey the
| lot to plaintiff. The defendant being thus
under no legal obligation to perform his alleged
promise has Gas the complaint shows) repudiat
| ed his promise and disabled himself from per-
| forming it.
The effect of the allegation of the com
plant is then to show that the de
PENDANT has received and appropriated to hi
own use the whole benefit of payment O
money made to third per- on by the plaintiff
with defendants knowledge and express con
sent, and part of transaction to which h
was party the direct result of which paymen
was to confer upon him the benfts spoken of
and further that the payment was not made
nor intended, nor understood to be made as
gift or gratuity to the defe ndant.
Upon such state of facts, we are of opir
ion that an action lies in favor of the plants
to recover said sum of seventy dollars, in tn
nature of the common law action of assumsi
for money paid, on action which maintain
able in any case in which the plaintiff had pal
| money to q third party at the request, expires
or implied, of the defendant, and with an III
dertaklng express or implied, on his part to It
pay it, Gritty contracts, $50. Gil
Evid, Sec. 113.
The order sustaining the demurrer to tn
complaint is reversed. BERRY j.
Nelse A. lee, 4ppeilaat, Us. Dcrtcr Pnrret
md II. San6otn, Respondents.
OPINION.
This case came into the district court
Mower county upon appeal upon questions
law and fact from judgment of justice
the peace
In pursuance of stipulation of the partis
and by order of the court it was sent to
referee for q trial and determination of tt
issues therein. Having heard the case Il
referee reported Judgment in favor of d
PENDANTS.
From the judgment entered in accordan'
with the report the plaintiff appeals to tn
? court. The only point made in support of tt
appeal is that the justice had no jurisdictio
OF the action brought before him, because I'll
amount in controversy exceeded one hundrt
dollars, and that therefore the district cou
: acquired no jurisdiction through the appeal.
Whether the objection to the jurisdiction
| the Justice would have been valid or not if
had been seasonably and properly taken, =
need not inquire. No objection appears
, have been taken to the ursdictit
of the district court until tt
case reached this court. The case was one
! which the district court could acquire compile
: jurisdiction, by the voluntary appearance
a the parties and their voluntary submission
+ the matters in controversy between them to i
adjudication That is precisely what dor
in this case, and the effect was to confer upc
the district court complete jurisdiction
render the judgment appealed from.
Judgment affirmed. BERRY, j.
| James W. LOugh, administrator Of The estate
William, Pitnadn, deceased, respondent,
| INN mt