Thompson v. Steinkamp

1. Witnesses ? Confidential communications ? Husband and wife. Permitting wife to relate conversations and communications made to her by husband was not error, where court was warranted in finding that the husband did not regard the communications as confidential because he made communications to others besides the wife. The presence of a third person who heard the conversation negatives an intention that communication was confidential. 2. Evidence ? Decedents declarations may be admissible as exception to "hearsay rule." Where intent is a material element of a disputed fact, declarations of decedent made after as well as before an alleged act that indicate intent with which he performed the act are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, regardless of whether such declarations are self-serving. - Page 476 3. Appeal and error ? Letter held admissible. In an action for determination that defendant was holding described realty in trust for the sole benefit of the plaintiffs decedent, it was not error to receive in evidence a letter written by a county welfare office in Minnesota showing that defendant in caring for decedents mother had been paid by the county. 4. Fraudulent conveyances ? Court will not aid in defrauding creditors. Generally, a court of equity will not aid one who has caused title to his property to be transferred to another for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. 5. Trusts ? Court warranted in finding resulting trust. Where the record shows that in fact no creditor was defrauded and in view of the record it was held that the district court did not abuse his discretion in finding a resulting trust. 6. Trusts ? No estoppel established. Proof that defendant, with knowledge of plaintiffs decedent, moved on to property purchased with money furnished by decedent, established a home, made repairs and improvements, paid taxes thereon, and expended money by way of enhancing furnishings and buildings, and permitted decedent and his guest to live and board at house on premises, did not estop plaintiff from asserting a resulting trust in the property in favor of her decedent, where whatever defendant did, was more than compensated by decedents money.