Occasionally however it appears to be considered that equal contributions to the price are to be presumed in the absence of evidence as to the amounts of the respective contributions. Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 148 111. 9, 35 N. E. 383; Edwards v. Edwards, 39 Pa. 369; Speer v. Burns, 173 Pa 77, 34 Atl. 212 (semble); Shoemaker v. Smith, 11 Humph (Tenn.) 81; O'Donnell v. McCool, 89 Wash. 537, 154 Pac. 1090. See the criticism of such a view in Culp v. Price, 107 Iowa, 133, 77 N. W. 848.

37. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 143; Smithsonian Institution v. Meech, 169 U. S. 398; Wood v. Wood, 116, Ark. 142, 172 S. W. 860; Corr's Appeal, 62 Conn. 403; Goelz v. Goelz, 157 111. 33; Hayes v. Dean,

- (Iowa)-, 164 N. W. 770; Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Deale, 18 Md. 36, 79 Am. Dec. 673; Perkins v. Nichols, 11 Allen (Mass.) 542; Gilliland v. Gilliland, 96 Mo. 522; Dickinson v. Davis, 43 N. H. 647, 80 Am. Dec. 202; McGee v. McGee, 81 N. J. Eq. 190, 86 Atl. 406; Singleton v. Cherry, 168 N. C. 402, 84 S. E. 698; Bowser v. Bowser, 82 Pa. St. 57; Bucknell v. Johnson, - N, D.-. 163 N. W. 683; Mendenhall v. Walters, 53 Okla. 598, 157 Pac. 732; Smith v. Strahan, 16 Tex. 314, 67 Am. Dec. 622; Deck v. Tabler, 41 W. Va. 332, 56 Am. St. Rep 837. 38. Long v. King, 117 Ala. 423, 23 So. 534; Watson v. Murray, 54 Ark. 499, 16 S. W. 293; Wright v. Wright, 242 111. V, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 161, 89 N. E. 789; McGin-nis, 159 Iowa, 394, 139 N. W. 466; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121, 50 Am. Dec. 617; Clark v. Creswell, 112 Md. 339, 76 Atl. 579; De Ro-boam v. Schmidtlin, 50 Ore. 388; Wheeler v. Kidder, 105 Pa. 270; Dudley v. Bosworth, 10 Humph.

(Tenn.) 9, 51 Am. Dec. 690; Clary v. Spain, 119 Va. 58, 89 S. E. 130; Adley v. Pletcher, 55 Wash. 82, 104 Pac. 167; Dyer v. Dyer, 2 Cox 92, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. 314, and notes.

39. Finch v. Finch 15 Ves. 43; Smithsonian Institution v. Meech, 169 U. S. 398, 42 L. Ed. 793; Hubbard v, McMahon, 117 Ark. 563, 176 S. W. 122; Faylor v. Fay-lor, 136 Cal. 92, 68 Pac. 482; Corr's Appeal from Com'rs, 62 Conn. 403, 26 Atl. 478; Dodge v. Thomas, 266 111. 76, 107 N. E. 261; Hagan v. Powers, 103 Iowa, 593, 72 N. W. 771; Perkins v. Nichols, 11 Allen (Mass.) 542; Hall v. Hall, 107 Mo. 101, 17 S. W. 811; Lakey v. Broderick, 72 N. H. 180, 55 Atl. 354; Thomas v. Thomas, 79 N. J. Eq. 461, 81 Atl. 748; Jackson v. Matsdorf, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 91. 6 Am. Dec. 355; Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S. C. 467, 38 S. E. 122; Dudley v. Bosworth, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 9, 51 Am. Dec. 690; Smith v. Stra-han, 16 Tex. 314, 67 Am. Dec. 622;

Wallace v. Bowen, 28 Vt. 638.

40. See articles by Professor Costigan in 12 Mich. L. Rev. at P. 428, and in 27 Harv. L. Rev. at p. 457.

41. Kinley v. Kinley, 37 Colo. 35, 119 Am. St. Rep. 261, 86 Pac. 105; Murray v. Murray, 153 Ind. 14, 53 N. E. 946; Andrew v. Andrew, 114 Iowa, 524, 87 N. W. 494; Chapman v. Chapman, 114 Mich. 144, 65 N. W. 215, 72 N. W. 131; Ryan v. Williams, 92 Minn. 506, 100 N. W. 380.

42. Smithsonian Institution v. Meech, 169 U. S. 398, 42 L. Ed. 793; Harbour v. Harbour, 103 Ark. 273, 146 S. W. 867; Corr's Appeal from Com'rs, 62 Conn. 403, 26 Atl. 478; Bachseits v. Leichweis, 256 111. 357, 100 N. E. 197; Short v. Short, 62 Ore. 118, 123 Pac. 388; Bickford v. Bickford's Estate, 68 Vt. 525, 35 Atl. 471; Ludwick v. Johnson, 67 W. Va. 499, 68 S. E. 117; and other cases cited 12 Mich. Law Rev. at p. 428.

40G Real Property. [ Sec. 108

- Statutory provisions. By statute in some stales, including New York, a trust does not result to the person paying the consideration unless the absolute conveyance to another than himself is made without his consent.43 An exception is, however, usually made by these statutes in favor of the creditors of the person paying the consideration, they being allowed to enforce a resulting trust so far as may be necessary for the satisfaction of their claims.44 Occasionally such a statute is so phrased as to protect the person paying the consideration in case the grantee orally agreed to hold in trust for him, thus obviating the possibility of the grantee profiting by his bad faith in the matter.45