Zulver v. Murray

²⁴³ Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The outstanding fact in this ease is the guilelessness or carelessness of all the parties concerned in or connected with it. Mrs. Florence Murray lived at Yo-. 2003 MeCulloh Street, which she rented from Julius F. Diehl in December, 1917, and where she carried on a boarding house. Across the street Isidor ¡Zulver had a grocery store, at which Mrs. Murray was a customer.

According to the testimony of Mrs. Murray, sometime in 1918 Mr. Zulver broached to her the subject of buying the house she occupied, saying in substance that he was willing to finance the deal and that she could continue to pay to him the same amount weekly that she had been paying to Mr. Diehl as rent, and that from it he would pay the taxes, ground rent, water rent, and interest on the advances, and then apply the balance on the principal. Mr. Diehl, the then owner, was called on and expressed his readiness to sell the property for nineteen hundred dollars. The transaction was consummated for that amount, of which fifteen hundred dollars was borrowed on mortgage from The Yew Home Building and I,oan Association. The deed from Mr Diehl was taken in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Zulver, with no mention to indicate that Mrs. Murray was'in any way interested in the property, though in the mortgage which was made she is named as one of the mortgagors, and she signed and acknowledged the mortgage.

The character of Mrs. Murray’s interest, if any, is not set out in the instrument, but is left entirely to conjecture. Mr. Diehl seems to have been under the impression that the transfer was being made for Mrs. Murray’s benefit, but as to the specific terms of this, his testimony is very vague and indefinite. Some three weeks after the execution of the deed, Mr. Zulver called on Mrs. Murray to increase the amount of her weekly payments from $11.50 to $15, and the receipts given were uniformly for “rent.” Then in. due order followed an ejectment proceeding in the Peoples’ Court, which was dismissed, and then a notice to quit. ²⁴⁴ The bill in this case seeks to have the equity court declare a trust iu the property for the benefit of Mrs. Murray, and then to .enforce the trust so declared, and that an accounting might be had of the sums of money which Mrs. Murray had paid. This was clearly not an express trust, as there was no evidence in writing with regard to it, as is required