I note the comments by Cory J. at para.22 in Murray v. Roty: I would have thought that there was clear evidence of a common intention that the properties be jointly owned? It would not be necessary to find that the titleholder consciously formulated the intention in [his] own name that the property were to be jointly owned. Nor would it be fatal to such a conclusion if the titleholder acted with a different intention which he did not communicate to the non-titled person. Rather he (the titleholder) will be bound by any inference which the non-titled holder might reasonably have drawn from his words or conduct. (See: Gissing.) It would have been a very reasonable inference for the non-titled person to have drawn from the words and conduct of the titleholder that he intended the properties to be jointly owned.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.