13. Ante, Sec. 106 (g).

13a. See In re Moore's Estate, 198 Pa. 611, 48 Atl. 884; Stevenson v. Mayor, of Liverpool L. R. 10 Q. B. 81.

- (c) In favor of person paying consideration.

When the consideration for a conveyance is paid by a person other than the grantee named therein, a resulting trust is ordinarily regarded as arising in favor of such person, on a presumption that one would not pay for property unless he intended to have the beneficial interest therein.15

14. Post Sec. 116 (c) note 34.

15. Dyer v. Dyer, 2 Cox 92, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. 314, and notes; Ex parte Vernon, 2 P. Wms. 549; Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Atk. 50; Olcott v. Bynum, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 44, 21 L. Ed. 570; Powell v. Mon-son & B. Mfg. Co., 3 Mason, 362 Fed. Cas. No. 11, 356; Osborne v. Endicott, 6 Cal. 149, 65 Am. Dec. 498; Champlin v. Champlin, 136 111. 309, 29 Am. St. Rep. 323, 26 N. E. 526; Sullivan v. McLenans, 2 Iowa, 427, 65 Am. Dec. 780; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121, 50 Am. Dec. 617; Miller v. Miller, 101 Md. 600, 61 Atl. 210; McGowan v. McGowan, 14 Gray (Mass.) 119, 74 Am. Dec. 668; Paul v. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 580; Dow v. Jewell, 18 N. H. 340, 45 Am. Dec. 371; Depeyster v. Gould, 3 N. J. Eq. 474, 29 Am. Dec. 723; Summers v. Moore, 113 N. C. 394, 18 S. E. 712; Williams v. Hollings-worth, 1 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 103, 47 Am. Dec. 690; Dudley v. Bos-worth, 10 Humph, (Tenn.) 9, 51 Am. Dec. 690; Neil v. Keese, 5

So far as concerns jurisdictions in which the Statute of Uses is in force, the question might well he suggested, why is not the trust, which results in favor of the person paying the consideration, executed by the statute, so as to give to such person the legal title.15a The execution of the trust would no doubt defeat the presumed intention, but that the intention is defeated appears never to have been regarded as a reason for excluding the operation of the statute. The only answer to this question, which suggests itself, is that the Statute of Uses was probably regarded as applying to such uses only as were recognized at the time of its passage, that is, express uses, uses resulting to the grantor, and uses implied as against a vendor in favor of the purchaser, by reason of the payment of a consideration by the latter. Uses or, as we call them, trusts, implied in favor of the person paying the consideration as against the grantee of the land, appear not to have been recognized till after the passage of the statute.

The trust thus arising has been regarded as within the exception in the Statute of Frauds as to trusts arising by the implication or construction of law, so that the payment of the consideration by a person other than the legal grantee may be proven by parol evidence,16 and such evidence has been held to be admissible for the purpose, even though the conveyance recites that the consideration was paid by the grantee.17 But such a trust being based on the presumed intention of the parties, it may be shown that the intention was otherwise, and that the grantee of the legal title was also to take the beneficial interest.18 That the grantee orally deelared himself a trustee for the person paying the consideration is immaterial in this regard,19 that is, the resulting trust in such case being a trust, an intention to create which is inferred from the payment of the price by the cestui, such inference, by reason of the exception in the statute, may be made even though the statute itself excludes evidence of the oral declaration of such intention.

Tex. 23, 51 Am. Dec. 746 and note; Parker v. Logan, 82 Va. 376, 4 S. E. 613; Deck v. Tabler, 41 W. Va. 332, 56 Am. St. Rep. 837, 23 S. E. 721.

15a. In New Hamphire the use or trust thus raised is executed by the Statute of Uses. Hutchins v. Heywood, 50 N. H. 491; Osgood v. Eaton, 62 N. H. 512.

16. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec.Sec. 137, 138; Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Atk. 150; Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173, Fed. Cas. No. 6,802; Home Land & Loan Co. v. Routh -Ark.-, 185 S. W. 467;

Osborne v. Endicott, 6 Cal. 149, 65 Am. Dec. 498; Strong v. Messinger, 148 111. 431, 36 N. E. 617; Irwin v. Ivers, 7 Ind. 308, 63 Am. Dec. 421; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121, 50 Am. Dec. 617; Dryden v. Hanway, 31 Md. 254; Depeyster v. Gould, 3 N. J. Eq. 474, 29 Am. Dec. 723; Pritch-ard v. Brown, 4 N. H. 397, 17 Am. Dec. 431; McGinity v. Mc-Ginity, 63 Pa. St. 38; James v. Fulcrod, 5 Tex. 512, 55 Am. Dec. 743; Parker v. Logan, 82 Va. 376, 4 S. E. 613; Deck v. Tabler, 41 W. Va. 332, 56 Am. St. Rep. 837; 23 S.

Payment of the purchase price by a third person will not raise a trust in his favor if it is made as a loan to the legal grantee, since in that case the latter, and not the former, really makes the payment.20 On the

B. 721; Womach v. Sandygren, 96 Wash. 12, 164 Pac. 600.

17. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 137; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1040; Lewin, Trusts (9th Ed.) 176; Millard v. Hathaway, 27 Cal. 119; Irwin v. Ivers, 7 Ind. 308, 63 Am. Dec. 420; Cooper v. Skeel, 14 Iowa, 578; Livermors v. Aldrich, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 431; Page v. Page, 8 N. H. 187; Depeyster v. Gould, 3 N. J. Eq. 474, 29 Am. Dec. 723; Boyd v. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 582; Neil v. Keese, 5 Tex. 23, 51 Am. Dec. 746, note.

18. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec.Sec. 139, 140; Bayles v. Baxter, 22 Cal. 575; Acker v. Priest, 92 Iowa, 610; Walsh v. McBride, 72 Md. 45, 19 Atl. 4; Livermore v. Aldrich, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 431; Strimpfler v. Roberts, 18 Pa. St. 283, 57 Am.

Dec. 606; Larisey v. Larisey, 93 S. C. 450, 77 S. E. 129; Smith v. Strahan, 16 Tex. 314, 67 Am. Dec. 622; Deck v. Tabler, 41 W. Va. 332, 56 Am. St. Rep. 837, 23 S. E. 721.

19. Long v. Mechem, 142 Ala. 405, 38 So. 262; Crosby v. Henry, 76 Ark. 615, 88 S. W. 949; Moultrie v. Wright, 154 Cal. 520, 98 Pac. 257; Brenneman v. Schell, 212 111. 356. 72 N. E. 412; Prow v. Prow, 133 Ind. 340, 32 N. E. 1121; Thomas v. Thomas, 62 Miss. 531; Converse v. Noyes, 66 N. H. 570, 22 Atl. 556; Warren v. Tyman, 54 N. J. Eq. 402, 34 Atl. 1065; and other cases cited by Professor Costigan, 12 Mich. Law Rev. at pp. 426, 428.