87 N.Y.S. 551 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1904
This action was brought by the plaintiff as trustee in bankruptcy of one Sarah Warsawski to compel the conveyance to him of certain lands situate in the borough of Manhattan which the trustee contended were conveyed without consideration by Sarah Warsaw-ski to her daughter Etta upon the explicit agreement that the beneficial interest in the lands remained in -the ■ grantor and that she should be entitled to a reconveyance upon demand. Thesis lands were conveyed by Etta to one Lena Davis, another daughter of the bankrupt; and it was claimed by the plaintiff that the conveyance.
Section 207 of the Real Property Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 547) provides that “ any trust or power over or concerning real property * * * cannot be created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared unless * * * by a deed or conveyance in writing subscribed by the person creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.” This provision of the statute clearly prescribes that every conveyance of an interest in real property in trust must be by deed in writing. There is an exception in the section, however, which provides that the section shall not prevent any declaration of trust from being proved by a writing' subscribed by the person declaring the same. And it has been held that such a trust may be established! by any writing from which its terms can be spelled out, and which. ■ is subscribed by the party who, it is claimed, has declared the trust.
How in the case at bar there was no attempt to prove a declaration of trust by any writing whatever. In fact, it was stated by the counsel that it was to be proved by parol; and he claimed to do this under the pleadings, because the' statute was not set up in favor of the defendant Lena Davis. There was á general denial, and there was an allegation that the defendant Sarah Warsawski "had never made any such declaration in writing; but there was none in respect to the defendant Lena Davis.
But we think that the decisions in reference to the necessity of a
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Patterson, O’Brien, Ingraham and McLaughlin, J J., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.