Court Opinion

ID: 3549970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:03:04.692559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:49.477583
License: Public Domain

It is unnecessary to consider the contention of Koyiades that on the facts alleged no resulting trust could be found to exist as between Sultana and Eraklis (Brooks v. Fowle, 14 N.H. 248, 260; Francestown v. Deering,41 N.H. 438, 442; Pembroke v. Allenstown, 21 N.H. 107, 111; Moore v. Moore,38 N.H. 382, 389; Bodwell v. Nutter, 63 N.H. 446, 447; Fessenden v. Taft,65 N.H. 39, 41; Crowley v. Crowley, 72 N.H. 241, 244-5); for if the existence of a trust as between them were conceded, it was a secret trust as to Koyiades and could not be set up here to defeat her rights as a judgment creditor. Riddle v. George, 58 N.H. 25, 26; Corning v. Records,69 N.H. 390, 396; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N.H. 296, 304. See Kingsbury v. Smith, 13 N.H. 109, 118, 120; Bell v. Twilight, 18 N.H. 159, 166; Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N.H. 510, 522; Stratton v. Putney, 63 N.H. 577, 579; Watkins v. Arms, 64 N.H. 99, 100. Bill dismissed as to Koyiades.
All concurred. *Page 543