Opinion
April 17, 1956.
May 21, 1956.
Trusts — Resulting trusts — Insufficiency of proof.
1. The evidence to support a resulting trust must be clear, precise and convincing.
2. In this action in equity to have the defendant declared a resulting trustee of certain real estate upon the ground that it was purchased, at least in part, with money of the plaintiff's deceased husband, but in which there was no clear, precise and convincing evidence as to how much of the husband's money had been used on account of the purchase price, and it also appeared that the husband had either abandoned or transferred to the defendant whatever interest he had in the property, it was Held that the court below had properly refused to remove a nonsuit.
Before STERN, C. J., JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1955, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, July T., 1953, No. 5, in case of Lillian Philo v. Sarah Elizabeth Rought. Order affirmed; reargument refused June 21, 1956.
Same case in court below: 5 Pa. D. C.2d 303.
Equity. Before PINOLA, J.
Compulsory nonsuit entered; plaintiff's motion to take off nonsuit refused and final order entered. Plaintiff appealed.
Joseph Mieszkowski, for appellant.
H. Monroe Houtz, with him R. Lawrence Coughlin, for appellee.
The order entered in the Court below is affirmed on the Opinion by Judge PINOLA.