Petzold v. Petzold
This text of 54 N.W. 933 (Petzold v. Petzold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
No trust in favor of plaintiff, or in favor of any one not a creditor of Krass in the real estate which is the subject of controversy, could arise upon the sole facts that the consideration for its purchase was paid by Krass, and the conveyance taken to defendant Petzold. As the money paid belonged to' Krass, and plaintiff had no legal interest in it, he could do what he pleased with it, and, if he paid it for a. conveyance to Charles Petzold'alone, no one can complain. No trust could arise upon the conveyance unless it was taken to Charles Petzold alone, against the consent of Krass, so as to be a fraud upon him, so as. to defeat the intention with which he paid the money. From the allegations of the complaint, it might be argued or conjectured that such was the case, though those allegations are not necessarily inconsistent with the fact that when he paid he knew of, and consented to, the conveyance running to Charles Petzold. So important a fact as that he did not consent, being the only foundation upon which a claim in behalf of plaintiff could rest, ought not, in pleading, to be left to argument or inference, but ought to be expressly stated, so that a direct issue may be made upon it. For want of such an allegation the complaint was bad.
Order reversed.
(Opinion published 54 N. W. Rep. 933.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
54 N.W. 933, 53 Minn. 39, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petzold-v-petzold-minn-1893.