This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The mother owned real estate in Oakland county. She was going to split her property 5 ways, but the 5th grantee, Joh, was not well. He had undergone treatment, at times, in various mental institutions. The mother put title to certain acreage intended for John in the name of D, his sister. On the same date the mother conveyed to D by 2 separate deeds, 2 separate parcels of real estate, one admittedly intended for D, the other allegedly for her at-times incompetent brother, John. D's deed was delivered to her. The one intended for John was not. Although the latter deed was recorded, it was kept in Harold's possession, a brother of John. D was not present when the arrangement was worked out and the proofs do not disclose whether or not she knew anything about it. At the time of John's death, Harold asked her to convey the land to John's widow, P. D refused. P brought this bill in chancery to impress a constructive trust upon the property and 'to obtain specific performance of said trust.' The trial chancellor found that a valid trust had been established and 'that the deed was given for the benefit of the incompetent son.' Conveyance was ordered. D appealed. D pled the statute of frauds and the record does not support the imposition of a constructive trust.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.