The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1896-05-27

had on more than one occasion to quote
elementary law before the supreme court
and that tribunal has seen fit to agree
with it." Whether Judge Works saw the
application or not was not apparent, but
there were no further Interruptions, and
he proceeded with his argument.
Judge Works followed. holding that 1t
was at least an implied trust, and that
Mrs. Krause was entitled to the full
amount claimed. Divested of all the ro-
nance and eXtraneous matters, the mat
ter was simply a cold question of law
and fact, and Mrs. krause should have
her rights.
At the conclusion of the argument the
court said:
The Court find that I am not able
to agree with either the plaintiff or the
defendant exactly, in regard TO the facts
of the case If had had. before the ar
gument was begun, little more DEFINITE
idea of what my conclusions were, per
haps it might have been better if had
stated them. But | have arrived at my
conclusions, to a large extent, during the
argument. In regard to the land that
is described as lot number ., which Is III
issue here under the amendment,l can
not find sufficient evidence to justify
finding that the plaintin had any inter-
est in that lot at the time of the trans
action in 1882. The only interest she
consisted of mere arrangement the
father had made to provide home for
his daughter and her husband. And
think the best and most reasonable in
terpretation of the evidence in regard to
that lot is that, at the time they erected
the house on lot 6, and the deed was
made to the daughter and they moved
into that house, that there was an
abandonment on their part of any in
terest they might have had or might
have claimed to have had, in lot .. Ii
was simply an exchange of provision
for home. Instead of the home they
previously had and occupied they ac-
cepted and took possession of the home
on lot G. The lot numbered was con-
Veyed by the father to the daughter; ana
it seems that he provided for the build
ing of a house upon it. ! might say, i'll
passing, that / don't attach very much
importance to the testimony of Mr. Ash
by, the former husband of the plaintiff
And l am inclined to think the most
reasonable Interpretation of that part
of the case is found in the testimony Of
Mr. Bryson, that the money was mostly
furnished by himself. But he conveyed
the property TO the daughter and built a
house upon it under such circumstances
that / think it should be considered as
a gift from the father to the daughter.
consequently it would be her property
and remain her property, and was her
property at the time in 1882 when it was
conveyed to Mr.. Hysham at her faith
ers request Now, in regard to the
transaction in 1882, as to which both
have testified, have arrived at the con-
clusion which seems to me the most
reasona BILE; but it does not exactly ac-
cord with the testimony of either one,
and is to some extent depending upon
circumstances as to portions of it.
think that transaction was this: The
father had arranged a trade for this
property, including both lots and and
other property, with Mr.. Hysham for g
! farm at Red Oak. Ia. That he stated to
and asked if she would convey the prop
| erty and make that trade. That she
! consented to that arrangement; but in
| stead of there being a promise on the
part of the father that he would at that
| time invest for her here in California
| an amount equal to the value of the
| property the value he received in the
| trade, think that the arrangement was
| different from that / think it was that
| she was Just simply to exchange the
| property and she therefore took an in
| terest in the Red Oak farm with him.
! and the deed was taken in the name of
| her father; and whatever interest she
| had then was transferred to the Red
| Oak farm. and was not an interest in
| any money or property then in the
| hands of Mr.. Bryson other than the Red
| Oak farm. 1t amounted simply to this:
That she paid d part of the considera-
ton for the Red Oak farm. That would
give rise to resulting trust The
amount of that consideration / think
should be determined to be $1,000. That
was the amount that was taken in trade,
and was considered satisfactory at
that time. Now, whether that
was a resulting trust which must
be enforced by the daughter with
in the period of the statute of
limitations commencing at that time or
whether it was not, is a question am
not prepared to decide. Assuming that
1t was not, and that she had an interest