The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-08
s![GEL case on IR!AL.
To Recover Possession Of Some
West Side Property.
IT is NOT YET FINISHED
siegel md HIS wiz Were Very Strict
About Money AnAirs-Hs Said .
Woman Could Not Hold Prop
=. erty Unlsss . Sole Trader.

The suit of Elias sieseI against his
ex-wife, Phoebe 0iegel, 70 recover pos
session Of some West side property.
which stands in her name, occupied the
and will probably take up all Of to-day.
When the trial wa resumed yester-
day morning Mr.. siegel was again put
on the stand and Mr.. Campbell asked
him II there had been a return card on
the envelope enclosing the letter which
he sent to his wife at Salt AXE demand
inga reconveyance Of the property. Mr..
Corbett objected to the question on the
ground that 1t was immaterial. Mr..
Campbell wanted to prove hat Mrs.
siegel had received the demand. The
court sustained the objection and the
witness was excused. Mr.. Campbell
again announced h close Of the plant
ir's case, and hen the defendants at
torneys made a motion for q non-suit.
based on 10 different grounds, as fol-
lows:
'First-That the trust attempted to
be shown In the evidence in this case IL
not the same as the trust which IL al
legged.
''Second-That the trust attempted to
be shown in this action appears from
the evidence OF plaintiff to have been
based upO some agreement made at a
time after the conveyance of the and to
the defendant, whereas as a matter OF
law such trust cannot afterwards be
created. but must arise contemporane-
ously with the conveyance itself.
"~Third-That the plaintiffs evidence
in this action shows that part payment
for thA Ior6 mas vnaAa h~r th2 la(anAa-k
m part payment by the plaintiff will
not constitute a trust.
"Fourth-This being an equitable ac-
ton. the plaintiff must do equity before
asking a decree against the defendant.
1t appears from the evidence that the
defendant has personally signed and Is
liable for the payment OF q promissory
note Of $4,000. secured by the mortgage
mentioned in the evidence. That paint
in is not a party to this note or debt;
that the same is a personal note of the
defendant. The plaintiff. neither in the
pleadings nor in the trial, offers to re-
lieve the defendant from this obligation,
and therefore the plaintiff has no right
to ask equitable relief of the court.
"Fifth-The plaintiff. upon his own
evidence, placed the property in ques-
ton In the name of the defendant for the
purpose of avoiding the claims of pros
pective creditors. Where such facts ap-
pear the rule is that no trust arises, no
matter to whom such conveyance may
have been made. The law will not pro-
mote nor aid in the carrying out Of any
transaction which is to the slightest ex-
tent tainted with fraud.
"Sixth-The evidence shows hat at
the time the land was purchased the
plaintiff and defendant were husband
and wife. Where such facts appear IL il
the universal rule in equity that no re-
alItfnO trtfSf arises the rtr1a hofv0 thnt
where the land is purchased by the hus-
band and the title taken in the name
of the wife it is considered as a gift to
or a provision for the wife. This pre-
sumption that no trust arises under such
circumstances may be rebutted, but
there is no testimony in the case on the
part of the plaintiff rebutting such pre-
same.
"Seventh-In order to establish q re-
sulting trust the law requires that the
proof shall be clear, convincing, I'M
~equivocal and positive. Contradictory
oral statements and other statements
case on behalf of the plaintiff does not
fulfill the requirements of the law to es-
tabfAh a resulting trust.
"Eighth-From the evidence on the
part of the plaintiff in the case. the in
tention of the plaintiff at the time of
the purchase OF the property In question
was to make a gift thereof to the de-
PENDANT, his wife, or to provide for her.
1t IL therefore immaterial who furnished
the money or placed the improvements
upon the ground.
"Ninth-Before the plaintiff in this ac-
ton could maintain this suit a demand
upon the defendant for q reconveyance
of the property is necessary, and from
the evidence in this action II appears
that no demand has ever been made,
either before the institution of the suit
or afterwards. 1t is set up In the COM
plant that q demand was made, which
allegation Is expressly denied in the
answer.
'Tenth-Unless the property in ques-
ton In his action actually belonged to
the plaintiff, the construction Of i'm
provements upon the land gives him no
right or title in the property. II being
the rule that improvements follow the
land M any person making improve I
ments upon the land Of another &C |
Quires no title. Under the facts in this
case. h plaintiff and defendant. hav-
ing been husband and wife at the time,
the improvements were made, II II fur
ther the rule. applicable to such facts.
that he husband acquires nc title what |
ever by The improvements upon the
wife's land.
Upon each and every and all Of said
grounds, the defendant asks that his |
~ .-l.-A --.fA - /