applied upon the mortgage, is valid. Kelley v. Bowerman, 113 Mich. 416 (71 N. W. Rep. 836). Particular evidence held sufficient to show an assignment of rents to become due under a lease. Griffith v. Burlingame,-18 Wash. 429 (51 Pac. Rep. 1059). For consideration of particular case as to the proper distribution and apportionment of rent as between the owner and sublessor, see Blackall v. Morrison, 170 Ill. 152 (48 N. E. Rep. 705).

RESULTING TRUSTS.

Sec. 805.

EPITOME OF CASES.

General principles. To establish a resulting trust the evidence must be full, clear and satisfactory. Klamp v. Klamp, 51 Neb. 17 (70 N. W. Rep. 525); Barger v. Barger, 30 Or. 268 (47 Pac. Rep. 702); Spencer v. Terrell, 17 Wash. 514 (50 Pac. Rep. 468); Boyd v. Cleghorn, 94 Va. 780 (27 S. E. Rep. 574). Where there is an express trust there can be no resulting or implied trust. Myers v. Myers, 167 Ill. 52 (47 N. E. Rep. 309). A trust does not result to the grantor merely because there was no consideration for the conveyance. Tillaux v. Tillaux, 115 Cal. 663 (47 Pac. Rep. 691). Particular cases in which the evidence was held insufficient to create a resulting trust. Klamp v. Klamp, 51 Neb. 17 (70 N. W. Rep. 525). Where a widow acquires title to her deceased husband's real estate through foreclosure of a mortgage made by him to a trustee to secure a debt to her, she paying nothing therefor except the cancellation of her debt and the costs of the foreclosure proceedings to which his heirs were parties, no trust results in their favor; and the same is true as to lands which she purchases with the rents and profits of her homestead. Kyle v. Willis, 166 Ill. 501 (46 N. E. Rep. 1121).

Sec. 806. Purchase with trust funds or in violation of trust relation. A pastor who collects money for the purpose of building a church and purchases a lot for that purpose,

taking the title in his own name, upon which a church is afterwards erected, will be held to hold the title in trust for the benefit of the church, although he subsequently ceases to be its pastor. Gaines v. Drakeford, 51 S. C. 37 (27 S. E. Rep. 960). Where one who is the agent of another to sell a mining claim, locates a conflicting claim which embraces a portion of his principal's claim, he will be held to hold such portion in trust for his principal. Fisher v. Seymour, 23 Colo. 542 (49 Pac. Rep. 30). Where one acting as the agent of another for the purchase of a piece of property, takes a conveyance thereof in his own name, paying the purchase money out of his principal's funds, he will hold the property in trust for his principal. Sanford v. Hamner, 115 Ala. 406 (22 So. Rep. 117). A purchase by an attorney charged with the business interests of his client and which is the result of advice given to the client, will inure to the benefit of the client, subject to his obligation to reimburse the attorney his expenses incident to the purchase and management of the property. Brigham v. Newton, 49 La. 1539 (22 So. Rep. 777). A trust fund may be pursued by the beneficiaries as long as the same can be identified, into any land or other form of investment made by the trustee, as the law raises an implied trust as to such property in their behalf. Marshall's Ex'rs v. Hall, 42 W. Va. 641 (26 S. E. Rep. 300). One who takes a deed from a trustee in violation of his trust, becomes an involuntary trustee of a trust cast upon him by operation of law. Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 2223, 2224, 2244, applied. Nougues v. Newlands, 118 Cal. 102 (50 Pac. Rep. 386). Where a pledgee of a mortgage note surrendered it to the mortgagee in order to enable him to consummate a deal with the mortgagor, whereby he was to receive a conveyance of the mortgaged premises in satisfaction of the debt, under an express agreement by the mortgagee to pay the pledgee's debt or secure its payment by the execution of a mortgage on the property, it is held that when the mortgagee received the note he assumed a fiduciary relation to the pledgee, so that upon the consummation of his transaction with the mortgagor and his subsequent repudiation of the agreement, a constructive trust arose in favor of the pledgee to the extent of his debt. Lewis v. Lindley, 19 Mont. 422 (48 Pac. Rep. 765). Particular evidence held sufficient to create a resulting trust where a pur

Wolfe

chase was made by an administrator with trust funds. v. Citizen's Bank, Tenn. (42 S. W. Rep. 39). Particular facts held insufficient to show the existence of the necessary fiduciary relation to create a constructive trust. Stanford v. Mann, 167 Ill. 79 (47 N. E. Rep. 314).

Sec. 807. Trusts arising out of fraud or violation of contract. Where a tax collector who was furnished with the necessary money by a tenant in common agreed to procure for him the title to the common estate by prosecuting an action for the collection of delinquent taxes and purchasing the property in the name of such tenant in common, violates his agreement by taking the title in his own name, the tenant in common is not prevented from maintaining an action against such tax collector or his grantee, to establish a trust in the land on account of the fact that he was not a defendant to the tax suit, or because he was using the machinery of the revenue law to perfect title in him, as against his cotenants, it appearing that they had consented to the arrangement. Wolcott v. Wilsey, 141 Mo. 200 (42 S. W. Rep. 825). Where a person having an equitable paper title to a tract of land, and out of possession thereof, with full knowledge of another's superior equitable title, by any means obtains the superior legal title, which rightfully belongs to the holder of the equitable title, and possession thereunder, so as to prevent the rightful acquirement thereof by the holder of the equitable title, and thus bars his suit at law for the possession of the land, equity will hold such person a trustee of the legal title for the benefit of such holder of the equitable title; the acquirement of the legal title under such circumstances being regarded as constructively fraudulent. Where the holder of the equitable title to a tract of land has the right to have his deed reformed by his remote grantors, so as to cover such tract of land, and others claiming adverse inequitable title to the same land from the same grantors, with full knowledge of the outstanding equity, by judicious management contrive, in fraud of the rights of the equitable holder, to perfect their inequitable title in such way as to prevent the correction of such deed in such manner by their common grantor, such others will be held as trustees of the legal title, and com

pelled to convey the same to the holder of the equitable title. Davis v. Settle, 43 W. Va. 17 (26 S. E. Rep. 557).

Sec. 808. Trusts arising from the payment of pur. chase money. Whenever an estate is purchased in the name of one person and the consideration is paid by another, a trust is created by operation of law in favor of the party paying the purchase money. Cox v. Cox, 95 Va. 173 (27 S. E. Rep. 834). The trust must arise, if at all, at the time of the conveyance, and the money or other consideration for the deed which is the foundation of the trust, must then be paid or secured to be paid. Barger v. Barger, 30 Or. 268 (47 Pac. Rep. 702). Citing, Taylor v. Miles, 19 Or. 553 (25 Pac. Rep. 143); Beecher v. Wilson, 84 Va. 813 (6 S. E. Rep. 211; 10 Am. St. Rep. 883); White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige 238; Niver v. Crane, 98 N. Y. 47; Westerfield v. Kimmer, 82 Ind. 869; Appeal of Cross, 97 Pa. St. 474; Botsford v. Burr, 2 Johns., Ch. 408; Midmer v. Midmer's Ex'rs, 26 N. J. Eq. 302. Where one buys land under an executory agreement, and afterwards, before legal title is passed, verbally agrees that if another will pay the purchase money he shall have the land, and the other does so, the trust is enforcible in equity. Currence v. Ward, 43 W. Va. 367 (27 S. E. Rep. 329). Where one who agrees to loan the devisee of a mortgagor money with which to purchase the property at foreclosure sale and take a conveyance thereof as his security, purchases in his own name, a trust results in favor of the devisee. Hebron v. Kelly, 75 Miss. 74 (21 So. Rep. 799). Under How. Ann. Mich. Stat., § 5569, no use or trust results or can be raised by parol, in favor of one, who, in the absence of mistake, fraud or deceit, furnished the consideration for a conveyance, made with his knowledge or consent, to another, Chapman v. Chapman, 114 Mich. 144 (72 N. W. Rep. 131); applying this statute it is held that where a wife, to whom her husband conveyed land, for which he paid the purchase price under an understanding that she would so convey it as to vest the title in them jointly, executed a conveyance in pursuance of such understanding, it is, in the absence of fraud, valid as against her creditors. Desmond v. Meyers, 113 Mich. 437 (71 N. W. Rep. 877). Where a trust resulting from the

payment of purchase money is executed by a trustee making a conveyance to the beneficiary, the latter's title relates back to the time the trustee took his conveyance and the lien of a prior judgment against him does not attach to the land. Davenport v. Stephens, 95 Wis. 456 (70 N. W. Rep. 661). Where a widow to whom real estate is devised for life joins with the testator's children, who are to receive the land at her death, in a sale and conveyance of it, and the proceeds are invested in other land the title to which is taken in her name, a trust in such lands results in favor of the children in the same proportion that they would have taken the lands devised, and upon her death they may enforce their equitable title as against her devisee. Roberts v. Remy, 56 O. St. 249 (46 N. E. Rep. 1066). The exception to the rule creating a resulting trust on account of the payment of the purchase price which exists when the person in whose name the title is taken is one whom the purchaser is under obligation to support, does not apply where the parties to the transaction are brothers. Camden v. Bennett, 64 Ark. 155 (41 S. W. Rep. 854). Where a parent purchases land which he has conveyed to his son, it will prima facie be deemed an advancement so as to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust in the parent. Kern v. Howell, 180 Pa. St. 315 (36 Atl. Rep. 872; 57 Am. St. Rep. 641).

Sec. 809. Trusts arising from the payment of purchase money-Payment of an aliquot part. Where a resulting trust is sought to be enforced on account of the payment of part of the consideration for a conveyance, the evidence must show in a clear, concise and unequivocal manner, the exact proportion of the whole price actually paid, and that the payment was made for some specific part or distinct interest in the estate. Barger v. Barger, 30 Or. 268 (47 Pac. Rep. 702); Camden v. Bennett, 64 Ark. 155 (41 S. W. Rep. 854). In West Virginia it is held that one paying a definite and certain amount as part of the purchase price of land is entitled to enforce a trust in it to that extent regardless as to whether the sum paid be an aliquot part of the whole consideration or not. Currence v. Ward, 43 W. Va. 367 (27 S. E. Rep. 329). The court say: "So it be clear what amount is paid, it would seem