In case the land is already subject to a trust, a further trust can be created only by the person having the equitable interest, he being the one to be affected by the second trust, and consequently he is the one whose signature is necessary.50

- Subsequent writing sufficient. The English statute does not in terms require the trust to be created in writing, and consequently in England, and also in those states in which the same phraseology is adopted, a trust is not regarded as invalid merely because created orally, provided there is a writing, subsequently executed, by means of which it can be shown to exist.51 And a like view has been adopted even in states where

Under him, not a bona fide purchaser for value,56 a creditor, for instance.57

But in North Carolina, though there is no such statutory provision. one who has made a conveyance absolute in terms cannot show an oral trust in himself. Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N. Car. 227, 63 S. E. 1028; Jones v. Jones, 164 N. Car. 320, 80 S. B. 430.

48. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 83; Browne, Stat, of Frauds Sec. 106; Myers v. Myers, 167, 111. 52, 47 N. E. 309.

49. Morton v. Tewart, 2 Y. & C. Ch. 67; Carter v. Gibson, 29 Neb. 324, 26 Am. St. Rep. 381, 45 N. W. 634; See Bellamy v. Burrow Cas. temp. Talbot 97; McCreary v. Gewinner, 102 Ga. 528, 29 S. E. 960.

50. Tierney v. Wood, 19 Beav. 330; Kronheim v. Johnson, L. R. 7 Ch. Div. 60.

51. 1 Ames, Cas. Trusts, 178;

1 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 79; Forster v. Hale, 3 Ves. 696; Gardner v. Rowe, 5 Russ. 258, aff'g 2 Sim. & S. 346; Kingsbury v. Burnside, 58 111. 310,

Appear in one instrument, it being sufficient that they can be collected from several documents sufficiently connected, one only of which need be signed.63

II Am. Rep. 67; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423, 17 N. E. 899; Second Unitarian Soc. v. Woodbury, 14 Me. 281; Maccubbin v. Cromwell's Ex'rs, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 157; Safford v. Rantoul, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 233; Lane v. Ewing, 31 Mo. 75, 77 Am. Dec. 635; McVay v. McVay, 43 N. J. Eq. 47, 10 Atl. 178.

- Effect of performance by trustee. That the statute merely requires the trust to be manifested and proven by writing has this important result, that if one who holds land as trustee under an oral declaration, carries out the requirements of the trust by making a conveyance of the land to the cestui que trust,54 or sells it, accounting to the cestui for the proceeds of sale,55 he cannot subsequently question the validity of the transaction. Nor can it be questioned by one claiming

52. 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1006; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 294, Fed. Cas. No. 7,266; McClellan v. McClellan, 65 Me. 500; Urann v. Coates, 109 Mass. 581; Myers v. Myers, 167 111. 52, 47 N. E. 309; But a statute requiring the trust to be manifested and created in writing, appears to have been regarded as making a subsequent writing insufficient. Richardson v. Woodbury, 43 Me. 206. See 1 Ames, Cas. Trusts, 178.

53. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec.Sec. 82, S4 85. Hampton v. Spencer, 2 Vern. 288; Garnsey v. Gothard, 90 Cal. 603, 27 Pac. 516; Lynch v. Rooney, 112 Ca. 279, 44 Pac. 565; Kingsbury v. Burnside, 58 111. 310, 11 Am. Rep. 67; Whistler v. Sprague, 224 111. 461, 79 N. E. 667; Nesbitt v. Stevens, 161 Ind. 519, 69 N. E. 256; McClellan v. McClellan, 65 Me.

500; Urann v. Coates, 109 Mass. 581; Nolan v. Garrison, 151 Mich. 138, 115 N. W. 58; McVay v. Mc-Vay, 43 N. J. Eq. 47, 10 Atl. 178; Eagle Moin. etc. Co. v. Hamilton, 14 N. Mex. 217, 91 Pac. 718; Robert's App., 92 Pa. St. 407.

54. Stringer v. Montgomery, 111 Ind. 489, 12 N. E. 474; Prentis v. Prentis, 189 Mich. 1, 155 N. W. 473; Borst v. Nalle, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 423.

55. Robbins v. Robbins, 89 N. Y. 251; Walford v. Farnham, 44 Minn. 159, 46 N. W. 295. Eaton v. Eaton, 35 N. J. L. 290. And it has bean decided that if the trustee makes a sale of the land under the oral trust, the cestui may recover the proceeds. Bork v. Martin, 132 N. Y. 280, 30 N. E. 584, 28 Am. St. Rep. 570.

- Trusts in personal chattels. The statute applying in terms to trusts in lands, it applies to chattels real.58 It obviously does not apply to personal property other than chattels real, and consequently a writing is not necessary to evidence a trust in the proceeds of

56. King v. Bushnell. 121 111. 656, 13 N. E. 245; Johnston v. Jiek-ling, 141 Iowa 444, 119 N. W. 746; Collins v. Collins, 98 Md. 473, 57 Atl. 597, 103 Am. St. Rep. 408; Blaha v. Borgman, 142 Wis. 43, 124 N. W. 1047. Contra, Pruitt v. Pruitt, 57 S. C. 155.

57. Polk v. Boggs, 122 Cal. 114, 54 Pac. 536; McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Griffin, 116 Iowa 401,90 N. W. 84; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423; Bailey v. Wood 211 Mass. 37, 97 N. E. 902; Patton v. Chamberlain, 44 Mich. 5, 5 N. W. 1037; Columbia Bank v. Baldwin, 64 Neb. 732, 90 N. W. 890; Jamison v. Miller, 27 N. J. Eq. 586; Lockren v. Rustan, 9 N. Dak. 43, 81 N. W. 60; Richmond v. Bloch, 36 Ore. 590, 60 Pac. 385; Gottstein v. Wist, 22 Wash. 581, 61 Pac. 715; Martin v. Remington, 100 Wis. 540, 69 Am. St. Rep. 941, 76 N. W. 614. But that the claims of creditors take precedence of the oral trust, see O'Hara v. Dilworth 72 Pa. 397. Occasionally the claims of creditors have been supported on the ground of estoppel, that is, that they had been induced to give credit to the trustee by reason of the fact that the cestui que trust allowed the ownership to appear to be in him. Pierce v. Hower, 142 Ind. 626, 42 N. E. 223; Mertens v.

Schlemme, 68 N. J. Eq. 544, 59 Atl. 808.

A judgment creditor would seem to stand in no better position in this regard than a simple contract creditor, in view of the general rule (post Sec. 670) that a judgment binds only the actual interest of the judgment debtor. And it has been occasionally so decided. Hayes v. Reger, 102 Ind. 524, 1 N. E. 386; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Griffin, 116 Iowa 397; Sieman v. Austin, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Purney v. Fellows, 15 Vt. 525; Main v. Bosworth, 77 Wis. 660, 46 N. W. 1047; Blaha v. Borgman, 142 Wis. 43, 124 N. W. 1047. See Price v. Brown, 4 S. C. 144. Contra, Connoi v. Follansbee, 59 N. H. 124.