Belis v. Belis
This text of 152 A. 917 (Belis v. Belis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is unnecessary to consider the contention of Koyiades that on the facts alleged no resulting trust could be found to exist as between Sultana and Eraklis (Brooks v. Fowle, 14 N. H. 248, 260; Francestown v. Deering, 41 N. H. 438, 442; Pembroke v. Allenstown, 21 N. H. 107, 111; Moore v. Moore, 38 N. H. 382, 389; Bodwell v. Nutter, 63 N. H. 446, 447; Fessenden v. Taft, 65 N. H. 39, 41; Crowley v. Crowley, 72 N. H. 241, 244-5); for if the existence of a trust as between them were conceded, it was a secret trust as to Koyiades and could not be set up here to defeat her rights as a judgment creditor. Riddle v. George, 58 N. H. 25, 26; Corning v. Records, 69 N. H. 390, 396; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 296, 304. See Kingsbury v. Smith, 13 N. H. 109, 118, 120; Bell v. Twilight, 18 N. H. 159, 166; Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510, 522; Stratton v. Putney, 63 N. H. 577, 579; Watkins v. Arms, 64 N. H. 99, 100.
Bill dismissed as to Koyiades.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
152 A. 917, 84 N.H. 541, 1931 N.H. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belis-v-belis-nh-1931.