196 Ala. 221, 72 So. 74; Woodside v. Hewel, 109 Cal. 481, 42 Pac. 152; Briscoe v. Price, 275 111. 63, 113 N. B. 831; Buck v. Swazey, 35 Me. 41, 56 Am. Dec. 681; Hinman v. Sil-cox, 91 Md. 576, 468 Atl. 1017; Bailey v. Hemenway, 14 Mass. 326; Moore v. Moors, 74 Miss. 59, 19 So. 953; Barrett v. Foote (Mo.) 187 S. W. 67; Lynch v. Herrig, 32 Mont. 267, 80 Pac. 240; Frances-town v. Leering, 41 N. H. 438; Steere v. Steere, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1, 9 Am. Dec. 256; De Roboam v. Schmidtlin, 50 Oreg. 388, 92 Pac. 1082; Musselman v. Myers, 240 Pa. 5, 87 Atl. 425; Surasky v. Weintraub, 90 S. Car. 522, 73 S. E. 1029; Parker v. Coop, 60 Tex. 11; Wilder's Ex'x v. Wilder, 75 Vt. 178, 53 Atl. 1072; Beecher v. Wilson, 84 Va. 813, 10 Am. St. Rep. 883, 6 S. E. 209.

In Pennsylvania, however, it has been decided that if A furnishes money to B, subsequently to B's purchase, under an agreement made at the time of the purchase that A shall have an interest proportioned to the amount paid by A to B, there is a resulting trust to that extent in A's favor. Gilchrist v. Brown, 165 Pa. 275, 30 Atl. 839.

31. Wray v. Steele, 2 Ves. & B. 388; Powell v. Monson, & B. Mfg.

Co., 2 Mason 34/, Fed. Cas. No. 11, 356; Sanders v. Steele, 124 Ala. 415, 26 So. 882; Moultrie v. Wright, 154 Cal. 520, 98 Pac. 257; Crawford v. Manson, 82 Ga. 118, 8 S. E. 54; Briscoe v. Price, 275 111, 63, 113 N. E. 881; Hill v. Pollard, 132 Ind. 588, 32 N. E. 564; Kelley v. Jenness, 50 Me. 455, 78 Am. Dec. 623; Jones v. Dugan, 124 Md. 346, 92 Atl. 775; Barton v. Magruder, 69 Miss. 462, 13 So. 839; Hynds v. Hynds, 253 Mo. 20, 161 S. W. 812; Dow v. Jewell, 18 N. H. 340, 45 Am. Dec. 371; Baker v. Baker, 75 N. J. Eq. 305, 72 Atl. 1000; Murchison v. Fogleman, 165 N. C. 397, 81 S. E. 627; McGovern v. Knox, 21 Ohio St. 547, 8 Am. Rep. 80; Wallace v. Duffield, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 521, 7 Am. Dec. 660; Ott v. Duffy, 246 Pa. 211, 92 Atl. 201; McGee v. Wells, 52 S. C. 472, 30 S. E. 602; Barett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685, 5 Am. St. Rep. 98, 7 S. W. 525; Rogers v. Donellan, 11 Utah, 108, 39 Pac. 494; O'Donnell v. McCool, 89 Wash. 537, 154 Pac. 1090.

32. Olcott v. Bynum, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 44, 21 L. Ed. 570; (aliquot part); Woodside v. Hewel, 109 Cal. 481, 42 Pac. 152; Long v. Scott, 24 App. Dist. Col. 1; Furber v. Page, 143 111. 622, 32 N. E. 444 (aliquot part); Dudley v. Bachelder, 53 Me. 403; McGowan v. McGowan,

14 Gray (Mass.) 119, 74 Am. Dec. 668; Bailey v. Hemenway, 147 Mass. 326, 17 N. E. 645; Kenner-son v. Nash, 208 Mass. 393, 94 N. E. 475; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 23 N. J. Eq. 13; Leary v. Corvin, 181 N. Y. 222, 73 N. E. 984, 106 Am. St. Rep. 542; Barger v. Barger, 30 Oreg. 268, 47 Pac. 702; O'Donnel v. White, 18 R. I. 659, 29 Atl. 769.

33. Bibb v. Hunter, 79 Ala. 351; Murphy v. Clayton, 113 Cal. 153, 45 Pac. 267; Pickler v. Pick-ler, 180 111. 168, 54 N. E. 311; Lynch v. Herrig 32 Mont. 267, 80 Pac. 240; Leary v. Corvin, 181 N. Y. 222, 106 Am. St. Rep. 542, 73 N. E. 984.

34. The contention that it means that the part paid by the asserted cestui must be an exact divisor of the whole purchase price has been several times over ruled. Fleming v. McHale, 47 111. 282; Hinshaw v. Russell 280 111. 235, 117 N. E. 406; Miller v. Miller, 99 Va. 123, 37 S. E. 792; Currence v. Ward, 43 W. Va. 367, 27 S. E. 329; see Skehill v. Abbott 184 Mass. 145, 68 N. E. 37.

35. See cases cited ante, note 31; No such requirement is referred to in the English authorities. See Lake v. Gibson, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 291; Wray v. Steele, 2 Ves. & B. 388; Lewin, Trusts (12th Ed.) 186.

36. That the part of the consideration paid by the asserted cestui must clearly appear, see Olcott v. Bynum, 17 Wall. 44; Camden v. Bennett, 64 Ark. 155, 41 S. W. 854; Onasch v. Zinkel, 213 111. 119, 72 N. E. 716; Culp v. Price, 107

Real Property.

[ Sec. 107

- Payment by husband or father. When the legal title is conveyed to the wife of the person paying the purchase price, the usual presumption of intent that the person paying the money should have the beneficial interest does not apply, the presumption being rather that the transaction was intended as a gift or advancement to the wife by the husband.37 And likewise in the case of payment by a parent, or by one standing in loco parentis, for property conveyed to the child, the presumption is against a resulting trust.38

The presumption above referred to, that in the case of a conveyance to the wife or child of the person paying the consideration, a gift or advancement to the wife or child was intended, is, it is generally agreed, owner. Trusts which thus arise, in the view of a court of equity, in favor of persons equitably entitled to property wrongfully obtained or withheld by another, are not "trusts" at all, in the proper sense of the word, since no relation of confidence exists, and the person equitably entitled seeks, not to establish an equitable interest, but to enforce an equitable right to a legal interest. Indeed a court of equity might frequently give effective relief in such case without indulging in the fiction of a trust, but this fiction is of great utility in enabling the person entitled to assert a claim not only against the property itself which was wrongfully obtained or withheld, but also against any other property which can he regarded as the proceeds or product of such property.46 In view of the remedial, rather than substantive, nature of these trusts, a consideration of the circumstances under which they may be recognized would involve chiefly a discussion of various classes of fraudulent conduct against which equity will relieve, a matter outside of the scope of this work, and a few, merely, of the various classes of cases in which this doctrine has been applied will he here referred to.

Iowa, 133, 77 N. W. 848; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121, 50 Am. Dec. 617; Coppage v. Barnett, 34 Miss. 621; Sayre v. Townsends, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 650; Billings v. Clinton, 6 S. C. 90; Neathery v. Neathery, 114 Va. 650, 77 S. E. 465.