In the creation of an express trust, It is not necessary to use the words "use. confidence, or trust," or in fact any technical expression.47 It is sufficient if from the whole instrument an intentions appears to create a trust.48 In fact, the intention of the settlor may be shown by what are called "precatory words"; that is, by such expressions as "desire," "request," "entreat," "trust and confide." 49'

44 Neilson v. Lagow, 12 How. 98; Fisher v. Fields, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 495; Gould v. Lamb, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 84; Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189; Angell v. Rosenbury, 12 Mich. 241. But see Oooper v. Franklin, Cro. Jac. 400.

45 Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189.

46 Norton v. Norton, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 296; Bush's Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 85; Renziehausen v. Keyser, 48 Pa. St. 351. But see Lewis v. Rees, 3 Kay & J. 132.

47 Wright v. Douglass, 7 N. Y. 564; Raybold v. Ray bold, 20 Pa. St 308; Ready v. Kearsley, 14 Mich. 215; White v. Fitzgerald, 19 Wis. 480; Zuver v. Lyons, 40 Iowa, 510.

48 Toms v. Williams, 41 Mich. 552, 2 N. W. 814; Taft v. Taft, 130 Mass. 461; Mcelroy v. Mcelroy, 113 Mass. 509; Kintner v. Jones, 122 Ind. 148, 23 N. E. 701.

49 Warner v. Bates, 98 Mass. 274; Knox v. Knox, 59 Wis. 172, Is N. W. 155; Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366, 28 N. W. 353; Mcree v. Means, 34 Ala. 349; Erickson v. Willard, 1 N. H. 217; Collins v. Carlisle's Heirs, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 13; Bull v. Bull, 8 Conn. 47; Hunter v. Stembridge, 12 Ga. 192. But see,.

No definite rule can be laid down as to when the use of such words will be sufficient to create a trust, but it will depend in each case on the construction of the whole instrument, and the intention of the settlor appearing therefrom.50 In limiting equitable estates, it is not necessary to use the same technical words as are required in the limitation of estates at common law. All that is necessary is sufficient words to show the intention.51 Statute of Frauds.

At common law an express trust could be created by parol,52 but under the statute of frauds it must be evidenced in writing.53 But for this purpose any writing signed by the person against whom the trust is so to be enforced will be sufficient, if it show the existence of the trust.54 And if the statute of frauds is not set up, and the trust is admitted, it can be enforced, although created by parol, since no evidence of its existence is necessary in such case.55 In some states for expressions held not to raise a trust, Hopkins v. Glunt, 111 Pa. St 287, 2 Atl. 1S3; Burt v. Herron's Ex'rs, 66 Pa. St 400; Bowlby v. Thunder, 105 Pa. St 173; Colton v. Colton, 10 Sawy. 325, 21 Fed. 594; Sears v. Cunningham, 122 Mass. 538.

50 1 Perry, Trusts (4th Ed.) § 114. See cases cited in last note. Of this same nature are "trusts for maintenance." When property is given to a parent, or to one standing in that relation, and expressions as to support and education of the grantee's children are used, the property will be impressed with a trust, If It appears that such was the grantor's or testator's intention. Whiting v. Whiting, 4 Gray (Mass.) 240; Andrews v. President, etc., 3 Allen (Mass.) 313; Rittgers v. Rittgers, 56 Iowa, 218, 9 N. W. 188;. Babbitt v. Babbitt 26 N. J. Eq. 44. But there will be no trust if the expressions as to maintenance were used merely to show the motive. Rhett v. Mason's Ex'r, 18 Grat (Va.) 541.

51 Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119; Neilson v. Lagow, 12 How. 98; Fisher v. Fields, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 495; Welch v. Allen, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 147; Gould v. Lamb, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 84; Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189; Angell v. Rosenbury, 12 Mich. 241; Meredith v. Joans, Cro. Car. 244; Egerton's Case, Cro. Jac. 525.

52 l Perry, Trusts (4th Ed.) § 75.

53 29 Car. H. c. 3, § 7; Moore v. Horsley, 156 111. 36, 40 N. E. 323; Callard v. Callard, Moore, 687; Movan v. Hays, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 339; Sherley v. Sherley (Ky.) 31 S. W. 275; Acker v. Priest (Iowa) 61 N. W. 235.

54 steere v. Steere, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1; Barrell v. Joy, 16 Mass. 221; Mcclellan v. Mcclellan, 65 Me. 500; Dyer's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. 446.

55 Whiting v. Gould, 2 Wis. 552; Thornton v. Vaughan, 2 Scam. (111.) 219; Trustees of Schools v. Wright 12 111. 432; Woods v. Dille, 11 Ohio, 455.

It is provided by statute that trusts must be created and declared in writing.56 When a trust is created by will, the same formalities in the execution of the will are required as for a valid devise of lands.57 The statute of frauds applies to public or charitable trusts as well as to private.58