From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pinkinson v. Pinkinson

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Mar 21, 1922
117 A. 48 (Ch. Div. 1922)

Opinion

No. 49/713.

03-21-1922

PINKINSON v. PINKINSON et al.

Sidney A. Bierman and Frank E. Bradner, both of Newark, for complainant. Merritt Lane, of Jersey City, for defendants.


Action by Anna Pinkinson against Jacob Pinkinson and another. Decree advised for complainant.

See, also (Ch.) 109 Atl. 731; 113 Atl. 143.

Sidney A. Bierman and Frank E. Bradner, both of Newark, for complainant.

Merritt Lane, of Jersey City, for defendants.

FOSTER, V. C. Complainant seeks to establish that the titles to certain properties on Kinney street, Newark, and on Park and Snyder streets, Orange, are held by the defendant Fannie Pinkinson, in trust for her son, the defendant Jacob Pinkinson, who is the husband of complainant, and between whom there is now pending in this court a suit for separate maintenance; and complainant also seeks to have her inchoate right of dower in these premises established and protected on the authority of Brown v. Brown, 82 N. J. Eq. 40, 88 Atl. 186.

The evidence is convincing that Jacob Pinkinson purchased and paid for the Kinney street property and caused the title thereto to be placed in his mother's name, and on these facts the implication of law is that the grantee took this conveyance in trust for her son, the person who furnished the purchase money, and no attempt has been made to rebut this presumption. Baldwin v. Campbell, 8 N. J. Eq. 891; Cutler v. Tuttle, 19 N. J. Eo. 549, at p. 562.

The evidence relating to the payment of the purchase price for the Orange property is too uncertain and incomplete to justify the conclusion that Jacob paid this money and contracted for the purchase of this property in the name of Miss Blumen, and later had its title placed in his mother's name.

To establish her case, complainant must show that Fannie Pinkinson holds title to one or both properties for the use of Jacob (Yeo v. Mercereau, 18 N. J. Law, 387), or that Jacob, having purchased and paid for the properties, fraudulently, for the purpose of depriving his wife of her dower interest therein, caused the lands to be conveyed to his mother (Brown v. Brown, supra, and cases cited).

Complainant has established her contention respecting the Kinney street property, and a decree will be advised accordingly.


Summaries of

Pinkinson v. Pinkinson

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Mar 21, 1922
117 A. 48 (Ch. Div. 1922)
Case details for

Pinkinson v. Pinkinson

Case Details

Full title:PINKINSON v. PINKINSON et al.

Court:COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Mar 21, 1922

Citations

117 A. 48 (Ch. Div. 1922)

Citing Cases

Adams v. Adams

Under such state of facts the presumption is that a trust results in favor of the child who furnished the…

Wildeman v. Wildeman

" See, also, American Surety Co. v. Conway, 88 N. J. Eq. 370, 102 A. 839, and Pinkinson v. Pinkinson, 93 N.…