1. As to joint purchasers.

2. As to purchasers in name of nominal purchaser.

(1.) A conveyance of land to two or more persons, without words indicating that they are to take as tenants in common, constitutes, at Law, a joint-tenancy (a); and the rule is the same in Equity, if they advance the money in equal proportions (b), and do not purchase as partners, or for the purposes of trade or speculation.

If, however, two purchase, and one advance more of the purchase-money than the other, there will, in Equity, be no survivorship, although there are no words indicating a tenancy in common (c); but they will, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, be interested in proportion to their shares of the purchase-money. In Lake v. Gibson (d), the proposition is qualified by the expression, "if the proportions of the money are not equal, and this appears on the deed itself," and the dictum is thus cited by Sir E. Sugden (e): but the rule is laid down by Lord Hardwicke without qualification (f). It is, however, conceived, that the inequality in the sums advanced, must, to have this effect, be in accordance with the original or some subsequent express agreement between the parties; and not be the mere result of any temporary pecuniary arrangement at the time of the completion of the purchase (g).

Purchasers joint-tenants at Law, when so in Equity.

Not if they contribute unequally to purchase-money; or purchase for the purpose of trade or speculation; or, being joint-tenants, subsequently agree to hold property as if in trade.

(a) Co. Litt. 180. b. (b) Sug. 901.

(c) Rigden v. Vallier, 2 Ves. sen. 252, 258; S. C, 3 Atk. 731, 735.

(d) 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 291.

(e) Sug. 902.

(f) 2 Ves. sen. 258; 3 Atk. 735.

So, where land is conveyed to partners as joint-tenants for the purposes of trade, there is no survivorship in Equity (h); so, also, if it be conveyed to purchasers, not otherwise in partnership, as joint-tenants, but for the purpose of a joint adventure or speculation (i); "the purchase of the land being made to the intent that they shall become partners in the improvement; it being only the substratum for an adventure in the profits of which it was intended they should be concerned" (k).

So, if joint-tenants subsequently contract to deal with the property as if in trade, the Court will receive evidence of such a contract; and will hold that there is no survivorship (l).

And where partners purchased land out of partnership profits, and let it, but brought the profits into the partnership accounts, it was held that there was no survivorship; although the conveyance was to them as joint-tenants (m).

And, in the case of a joint-purchase, if one joint-tenant lay out money in repairs or improvements (n), - which may be either necessary, or sanctioned by the other joint-tenants - or, in the case of renewable leaseholds, advance money for the expense of a renewal (o), he has a lien upon the estate for the amount: but if one purchaser advance more than his share of the purchase-money, he acquires no lien on the estate; nor, it would appear, has he any remedy except a suit for contribution (p).

Joint-tenant has lien on estate for expenses of repairs, etc., and renewal fines.

(g) See Wood v. Birch, Sug. 905.

(h) Morris v. Barrett, 3 Y. & J. 384; Elliot v. Brown, 3 Sw. 489; Houghton v. Houghton, 11 Sim. 491.

(i) Lake v. Craddock, 3 P. Wms. 158; Lyster v. Dolland, 1 Ves. jun. 431; Dale v. Hamilton, 5 Ha. 369; 2 Ph. 266.

(k) Per Lord Eldon, 9 Ves. 597.

(l) Jeffereys v. Small, 1 Vern. 217; see 5 Ha. 384.

(m) Morris v. Barrett, 3 Y. & J. 384. The share of a deceased partner in the freehold or copyhold estates of the partnership, is not liable to probate duty; distance v. Bradshaw, 4

Ha. 315. As to the relative rights of his real and personal representatives, the following is stated by Mr. Bisset to be the clear result of the cases: viz. " that in the absence of a specific agreement to the contrary, real estate purchased with partnership funds for partnership purposes, is converted out and out into personal estate, and therefore goes to the personal representative, and not to the heir of a deceased partner; but that real estate purchased with partnership property, but not for partnership purposes, is not converted into personalty." Bis-set on Partnership, 56.

And, where purchasers stand in the relation of partners, any advantage secured by one, - e. g., the renewal of a lease (q), or an abatement of incumbrances charged on the property (r), - enures to the benefit of the others.

If the land is bought as a speculation - e. g., under an agreement between the partners that it shall be laid out, allotted, and sold for building purposes - no partner can enforce a partition or sale in contravention of the terms of such agreement (s): if, however, the management of the concern be entrusted to certain partners, who refuse to execute the duty they have undertaken, the Court will, upon a suit being instituted by another partner, take on itself, so far as it can, to put him in the situation in which he would have been had the trusts been properly performed (t).

Where, upon an agreement for a joint-purchase, the conveyance is taken in the names of some but not all of the intended purchasers, the interests of the others may be established by any subsequent writing signed by the fiduciary partners, and which acknowledges or proves the existence of the trust (u); and this, although the agreement be that the one purchaser shall find the money, and the other contribute his skill in purchasing and subsequently allotting and selling the land (w): it seems, however, to be the better opinion (x), that the mere fact of one of two parties in treaty for an estate desisting therefrom under a parol agreement that the other shall complete for their joint benefit, is not such a part performance as takes the case out of the Statute of Frauds; and that, in the absence of any subsequent written admission of the trust, the aggrieved party, unless he can establish a resulting trust, by proof of his having paid or contributed to the purchase-money, has no remedy. There is this distinction be-tween agreements and declarations of trust; in the one, it is the agreement itself, which is the origin of the interest, that must be in writing: in the case of a declaration of trust, which is only the recognition of a pre-existing interest, it is the evidence and recognition, and not the origin of the transaction which must be in writing (y): and, of course, it is not necessary that the party seeking to enforce the declaration of trust, should himself have been a party to it (z).

Any advantage secured by purchaser standing as a partner, enures to benefit of his copartners.

On joint-purchase by way of speculation, partner must conform to agreement.

If conveyance be not taken in names of all the purchasers, trust may be proved by any subsequent writ(n) Lake v. Gibson, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 291.

(o) See Hamilton v. Denny, 1 Ball & B. 199.

(p) See Wood v. Birch, Sug. 905.

(q) Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Ves. 298; Clegg v. Fishwick, 1 Mac. & G. 294.

(r) See Carter v. Horne, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 7, which according to the report was a mere case of a joint-purchase; and see 1 Mac. & G. 300.

(s) Peck v. Cardwell, 2 Beav. 137; and see Dale v. Hamilton, 2 Ph. 266.

(t) See 2 Ph. 276.