§
Dravo v. Comm'r

7 Cited authorities

  1. Helvering v. City Bank Co.

    296 U.S. 85 (1935)   Cited 129 times
    Upholding the estate tax on property transferred before death.

  2. Sanford v. Van Pelt

    282 S.W. 1022 (Mo. 1926)   Cited 37 times
    In Sanford v. Van Pelt, 314 Mo. 175, 282 S.W. 1022, 1028 (1926), the supreme court found that a deed similar to the one here created an express trust.

  3. Clark v. Campbell

    82 N.H. 281 (N.H. 1926)   Cited 35 times
    Holding the same for a gift to testator's "friends"

  4. Harris Trust Savings Bank v. Morse

    238 Ill. App. 232 (Ill. App. Ct. 1925)   Cited 8 times

    Gen. No. 29,898. Opinion filed October 6, 1925. Rehearing denied and additional opinion filed October 19, 1925. 1. TRUSTS — oral voluntary trust. A court of equity may establish and enforce a voluntary oral trust concerning personal property, but the acts or words relied on as creating such a trust must be unequivocal, admitting of but one interpretation and manifesting a completed transaction in præsenti. 2. TRUSTS — proof of oral voluntary trust. Proof of acts or words relied on as creating an

  5. Blunt v. Taylor

    119 N.E. 954 (Mass. 1918)   Cited 9 times
    In Blunt v. Taylor, 230 Mass. 303, 119 N.E. 954, the court found a precatory trust, and that the executors were trustees and designated as "executors and trustees," and after finding a trust void for uncertainty, the court adds: "The gift was not to the petitioners by name, but was a gift to them as trustees and executors."

  6. Davison v. Wyman

    100 N.E. 1105 (Mass. 1913)   Cited 10 times

    January 20, 1913. February 27, 1913. Present: RUGG, C.J., MORTON, LORING, BRALEY, SHELDON, JJ. Equity Jurisdiction, Remedy in Probate Court, Resulting trust. Trust, Validity, Resulting. Devise and Legacy, Validity. In a suit in equity by the next of kin of a testatrix, against the persons named as executors and trustees in her will and also made her residuary legatees, to establish a resulting trust in favor of the plaintiffs in a certain sum of money held by the defendants as residuary legatees

  7. Wittfield v. Forster

    124 Cal. 418 (Cal. 1899)   Cited 24 times
    In Wittfield, unlike La Fleur v. M.A. Burns Lumber Co., supra, 188 Cal. 321, a purpose to bestow a benefit on the named beneficiary was not reasonably ascertainable from the trust instrument.