Witts v. Horney

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There is no difficulty as to the law relating to resulting trusts. The numerous decisions of this Court upon the subject have placed it beyond controversy here. Where one party purchases an estate, and pays the money, and the deed is taken in the name of another, a trust results ⁵⁸⁶ bv construction of law to tbe party who paid the money, and such payment may be proved by parol; but in all such cases the proof of payment by the cestui que trust must be clear, direct, and explicit.

This strictness of proof is required, because of the danger of rendering titles depending upon deeds and other written documents insecure. Such is the law as announced in all the cases, and we cite only the decisions of this Court. Dorsey vs. Clarke, 4 H. & J., 557 ; Faringer vs. Ramsay, 2 Md., 375 ; Hollida vs. Shoop, 4 Md., 474 ; Greer vs. Baughman, 13 Md., 268 ; Brawner vs. Staup, 21 Md., 337 ; Cecil Bank vs. Snively, 23 Md., 253 ; Dryden vs. Hanway, 31 Md., 254 ; Groff vs. Rohrer, 35 Md., 335 ; Keller vs. Keller, 45 Md., 274 ; McDonnell vs. Milholland, 48 Md., 544 ; Thomas vs. Standiford, 49 Md., 184 . In this case Samuel K. Dashiell, as administrator and guardian, and others, conveyed, by deed, dated the 10th of July, 1877, certain leasehold property to Elizabeth A. Horney, the wife of Charles T. Horney, for the consideration of $550.

The property was sold under orders of the Orphans' Court, and the deed recites that the whole amount of the purchase money ($550) had been fully paid and satisfied by the purchaser, the said Elizabeth, and that it was executed for the purpose of vesting in her a good title by conveying to her the interests of all the parties in the property. Mrs. Horney had been married to one Witts, and had by him a son, the appellant. She was afterwards divorced from Witts and married Horney. How the son, by his bill, claims that this property was purchased with his money,