Court Opinion

ID: 3287006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:02:00.661625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:22.600853
License: Public Domain

We concur in the judgment. For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, it seems clear that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover on the basis of a resulting trust.
Also we think that the facts found by the court, which in that respect go no further than the allegations of the complaint, are not sufficient to establish a constructive trust. If it were pleaded and proved not only that the plaintiffs have expended substantial sums of money in the improvement, maintenance, and repair of the property, but also that those expenditures were made with the knowledge and acquiescence of the defendant and in reliance upon his promise to convey, the plaintiffs might have a better standing in court. The plaintiffs should have that opportunity, if they so desire. [4] It has been said that "as a general rule to enable a court of equity to exclude a verbal contract for the sale of an interest in land from the operation of said statute, there must be a collateral circumstance constituting an independent equity, imposing an obligation in conscience." (25 Rawle C. L., p. 700.) But the facts found by the court below in this case do not come up to that standard.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on April 10, 1923, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on May 14, 1923. *Page 405