The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-02-07

TS~Mm4 - 49, Ian4 [1aFl
.,,r 49, ~ - ~. ~ .sta.o....,ss ~
aaioevS Onae eiio nusvau v W.oUs.s o.o
monsy ironl VI vic, nllnsOl. - e
turn OF Iully account TOT II, Dy returning
the principai ana interest, OF py invessinG
| the same IN real estate LOT ner use anu pen.
ehC Ihls allegation appears 20 DO general
ana 60 apply to the entire money received
By the husband. 1t shows that the money
/ was loaned by the wife TO the husband TO pc
| paid principal and interest, or invested in
land for her use. The agreement to pay in
| terest clearly shows thatit was contemplar
ted that he should use the money on his
/ own account. He, therefore, clearly had
the option to use it as his own, rs borrowed
| money, which he was to take and use, pay
/ ing interest on it, or to invest in land Tor
i her use and it appears that he applied 1t
/ to his own use in the purchase OF land In
| his own name and right.
/ The bill then proceeds to particularlze as
| to this general allegation, and to state how
this money was received and the nature OF
/ the obligation of the husband. 1t shows
| written acknowledgment OF the husband
dated the 18th of January, 1851, of his
having collected $1,000 OF the money due ms
wife, and agreeing 10 make arrangements 70
| pay her as soon as ne c0atd ooncens-
emily do so; and it further alleges
that he received about one thonsand
dollars more, for and on account OF ms
same. These two sums make up the amount
winch ne Is alleged 20 nave received; ana ~
Is clear from the statements O. tne. Dill IN
reiation 10 each OF tnem, tnae ne y oniy
enargeaDle as upon general IhdopteunesS
for both OF them, 1or money na0 ana receiv-a
cd Dy MN 10 nef use; anu tnese partlc .laI
statements appear Illiy 20 negaIlse Ino Ie W
snag the money wa neiu ny nlli &c = s'eciilc
iunu pelonsl'S ~ ~.
"a, as 10 the appi,caGion OF TINS nioney 10
tne purchase Oh sne iano u alleges Inas ne
PROMISED ms wile TO purchase Ie a eseaCe 70
.1e Gaoa,st y ZIG Hoeeys feces:ea ~ ..n.' anu
20 lake the tlt.e III ner nans III saGlsiaclioI
Oh Ine amount our anu Inas ai'e s a ne oia ~
RuLcuaso JUG ianuS :.alnou ~. 'no sun -
&c toa9 e1ao'ea 20 Mahe s9te p"ttHase 0soa 1e
.afo"ga the casn aeqIsft" Jrom M:s WYE ~
uoes noU aver onae nc "pPlopiiee Scu "a. "
ihoney foceiVeu lot OF on accounC " nls Wie,
10 the purchase Oh the iahe anu shoso ailo-
gatlOns may De tfue' ana yet Tue money
mlght nave Deen ms properly py Che ioan oi
permission OF the wlIe; IN "nlcn esens ne
would nave nad the FignG 10 make use oi ~
!or MS own Denent as ne tlougnI proper' De-
ing accountable only 20 nef LOT SO huch
money nad ana received Dy MN 70 her use
= mere Is no ulsC'nct anu posiIiso ato ~ az
tnat the money recelSed oii account VI 0ne
wl1e was PAID Iof the purchase on tne iahu,
anu sum an ihioh0noo ooui" n.y. We AASoU,
because the averments must DC taken most
strongly against the pleader, and because
such Inference would be irreconcliable with
the allegations that the money was DorroW-
ed by him on interest, that he was to pay It
as soon as he couid conveniently 90 so' ana
that ne pledged himself TO account Ior IL.
IL Is, therefore, very clear that the aIega-
tl0ns OF the bill 90 not snow a case OF I'M
pIed trust:
buI IL Is insisted Ihat sucn trust Is s. snoWn
Dy tne auegation tnat' IN Feoruary IooS, tn9
appellee promised his VIE to purchase real
estate TO The amount OF the moneys received,
and to take the title IN her name, ana tnat
ne did make the purchase, Dut COOK the Title
In his own name
Upon this view, the Dill shows case OF
express trust, founded on the promise OF the
appellee to purchase real estate 10 the
amount In which he was indebted TO ms
wife, and TOR her use; Ihe right OF the wife
would depend entirely on the express prontse
OF the husband TO perform TINS oblgatlon;
anu OF course III does not snow case OF an
piled trust, which can only exist by lmphca-
ton OF law, ana results from the 1acts OF the
case showing tnat the party Is In equity en-
Titled TO the rignt CLAIMED.
The arguments OF counseI LOT the appel
liant on this point goes to show that 1t Is
case OF express trust; ana II tnas De trne u
Is obnoxious 10 the oo!ections taken Dy the