Resulting trust

the agent who so acts becomes a trustee for his principal. He cannot hold the land under an entry for himself, otherwise than as a trustee for his principal.

A trust raised by implication or construction of law, and presumed to exist from the supposed intention of the parties and the nature of the transaction. All trusts created by implication or construction of law are often included under the general term "implied trust;" but these are commonly distinguished into implied or resulting and constructive trusts; resulting or presumptive trusts being those which are implied or presumed from the supposed intention of the parties and the nature of the transaction; constructive trusts, such as are raised independently of any such intention, and which are forced on the conscience of the trustee by equitable construction and the operation of law. Story, Eq. Jur. § 1095; Hill, Trustees, 91; 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 510; 2 Spence, Eq. Jur. 198; 3 Swanst. 585; 1 Ohio, 321; 6 Conn. 285; 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 873; 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 93. See "Trust."

A trust raised by for it, and he subsequently informed her that Implication or construction of law, and pre- he has invested it in land for her, when, in sumed to exist from the supposed intention fact, he has not done so, but has taken the of the parties and the nature of the transac- title in his own name, no resulting trust tion. therein was created in favor of the wife; All trusts created by implication or con- Nashville Trust Co. v. Lannom’s Heirs struction of law are often included under (Tenn.) 36 S. W. 977. the general term implied trusts; but these To establish a resulting trust in one perare commonly distinguished into implied or son of land purchased in the name of anresulting and constructive trusts; resulting other, to whom title is conveyed, it is esor Resumptive trusts being those which are sential that the party setting up the trust implied or presumed from the supposed in- shall have paid, or become bound for the tention of the parties and the nature of the purchase-money on his own account, and as transaction; constructive trusts, such as are part of the original transaction of purchase; raised independently of any such intention, Harvey v. Pennypacker, 4 Del. Ch. 445; payand which are forced on the conscience of ment by way of loan to the nominal purchasthe trustee by equitable construction and the er raises no resulting trust; id. It is a latoperation of law. Story, Eq. Jur. § 1005; 1 ent equity, which cannot prejudice a bona Spence, Eq. Jur. 510; 2 id. 198; 3 Swanst fide holder for value; Gray v. Corbit, 4 Del. 585; Ross v. Hegeman, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) Ch. 135. 373; Thomas v. Walker, 6 Ilumphr. (Tenn.) The fact that a conveyance is voluntary, 93. especially when accompanied by other cir- Where, upon a purchase of property, the cumstances indicative of such an intention, conveyance of the legal estate is taken in it is said, may raise a resulting trust. See the name of one person, while the considera- 2 Vern. 473; Philbrook v. Delano, 29 Me. tion is paid by another, the parties being 410; Souverbye v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) strangers to each other, a resulting or pre- 240. sumptive trust immediately arises, and the Where a voluntary; 1 Atk. 188; disposiperson named in the conveyance will be a tion of property by deed; Stevens v. Ely, 16 trustee for the party from whom the consid- N. C. 493; or will is made to a person as eration proceeds; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. trustee, and the trust is not declared at all; 12G, 50 Am. Dec. 617; Livermore v. Aldrich, 3 Sim. 538; or is ineffectually declared; 1 5 Cush. (Mass.) 435; Partridge v. Havens, Myl. & C. 286; Ralston v. Telfair, 17 N. 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 618; Strimpfler v. Rob- C. 255; or does not extend to the whole erts, 18 Pa. 283, 57 Am. Dec. 606; Heilman interest given to the trustee; King v. Mitchv. Messmer, 75 Cal. 166, 16 Pac. 766; Carter ell, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 326, 8 L. Ed. 932; Benv. Challen, 83 Ala. 135, 3 South. 313; Price ning v. Benning’s Ex’r, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 585; v. Kane, 112 Mo. 412, 20 S. W. 609; and if 3 H. L. C. 492; or it fails either wholly or in he conveys the property to the cestui que trust such conveyance is good as against part by lapse or otherwise; Dashiell v. At-, torney General, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 392, 9 Am. the creditors of the trustee; Garner v. Bank, 151 U. S. 420, 14 Sup. Ct. 390, 38 L. Ed. 218. Dec. 572; Hawley v. James, 5 Paige (N. Y.) Resulting trusts are raised by the law 318; Kerlin v. Campbell, 15 Pa. 500; 10 Hare from the presumed intention of the parties, 204; the interest so undisposed of will be and the natural equity that one who fur- held by the trustee, not for his own benefit, nishes the means for the acquisition of but as a resulting trust for the donor himproperty should enjoy its benefits. But it self, or for his heir at law or next of kin, accannot arise where an obligation exists on cording to the nature of the estate. his part, legal or moral, to provide for the A resulting trust must arise at the time grantee, as in the case of a husband for his the title is taken. No subsequent oral agreewife, or a father for his child, as under such ment or payment will create it; Smith v. circumstance the relation to the party is Turley, 32 W. Ya. 14. 9 S. E. 46; Mc Devitt of itself sufficient evidence to rebut the pre- v. Frantz, 85 Va. 740, 8 S. E. 612; Fessensumption of a resulting trust, for in such den v. Taft, 65 N. H. 39, 17 Atl. 713; Ducie cases arises the contrary presumption of an v. Ford, 138 IJ. S. 587, 11 Sup. Ct 417, 34 L. advancement for the grantee’s benefit; Jack- Ed. 1091. Where a father was induced to son v. Jackson, 91 U. S. 125, 23 L. Ed. 258. execute an absolute deed of his land to one Where land is bought by a husband with of his children, by fraudulent representathe separate property of a married woman, tions that the grantee would hold it in trust and the title is taken in his name, a trust for the other children, and subsequently withpassed the title free from any trust in favor of the other children, as the fraud in procuring tle first deed created a resulting trust in favor of the father, the express trust being void, as not being in writing, and the second deed carried the father’s equitable interest; Thompson v. Marley, 102 Mich. 476, 60 N. W. 976. The property may be personal or real; Union Bank v. Baker, 8 Ilurnphr. (Tenn.) 447; Leiper v. Hoffman, 20 Miss. 615; 2 Beav. 454. Parol evidence is admissible to prove a resulting trust in land; Myers v. Jackson, 135 Ind. 136, 34 N. E. S10; Seiler v. Mohn, 37 W. Va. 507, 10 S. E. 490; Howard v. Howard, 52 Kan. 4C9, 34 Pac. 1114. One who buys shares of stock with his own money does not become trustee for another, though he tells him that the purchase is made for his benefit and he expects to be reimbursed by him; 18 U. S. App. 293. Resulting trusts cannot be declared upon doubtful evidence, not upon a mere preponderance of evidence. There should be no room for a reasonable doubt as to the facts relied upon to establish the trust; Adams v. Burns, 96 Mo. 361, 10 S. W. 26; Murphy v. Ilanscome, 76 la. 192, 40 N. W. 717; Henslee v. Henslee, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 24 S. W. 321. The statute of frauds has no application to a trust resulting from the purchase of property with funds of another; Reynolds v. Sumner, 126 111. 58, 18 N. E. 331. 1 L. It. A. 327, 9 Am. St. Rep. 523; Barnett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685, 7 S. W. 525, 5 Am. St. Rep. 98.

One that arises by implication of law, or by the operation and construction of equity, and which is established as consonant to the presumed intention of the parties as gathered from the nature of the transaction; as, for example, where one person becomes invested with the title to reni property under circumstances which in .equity obligate him to hold the title and exercise his ownership for the benefit of another, a familiar instance being the case where a man buys land with his own money but has the title put in the name of another. See Sanders v. Steele, 124 Ala. 415. 26 South. 882 ; Dorman v. Dorman, 187 111. 154, 58 N. E. 235, 79 Am. St. Rep. 210; Aborn v. Searles, 18 R.I. 357, 27 Atl. 796; Fulton v. Jansen. 99 Cni. 587. 34 Pac. 331; Western Union Tel. Co., v. Shepard, 169 N. Y. 170, 62 N. E. 154, 58 L. R A. Il5

Defined under Trust in Black's Law Dictionary.

A trust raised in equity by implication, for the benefit of the grantor of an estate, as upon the expiration of a previous trust, or before the beginning of another; in strictness, a trust arising from a going back or reverting of an estate to him from whom it proceeded, though commonly applied to various trusts which might more properly be regarded as implied trusts, — the trust arising, for instance, where, upon purchase, the purchase-money is furnished by one person, and the title is taken in the name of another. Resulting use: a use which returns to the grantor of an estate, as because it cannot vest, or because it has expired.