The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-05-08

lands in question Queen Emma is
the grantee, and the name of plaintiff
or Pahau nowhere appears in them.
Mr.. Cecil Brown testifies that he
dew the conveyance for the second
piece purchased (the consideration
for which was 81 800; that Pahau
told him to make the deed in the
Queens name. Upon Mr.. Browns
asking her why she wished it so
done, she said the money came from
Kanaina's estate; that her husband
Kanoelehua had deserted her, and
she wished the property so fixed that
he should have nothing to do with
it; that she had an understanding
with the Queen that she (Pahau)
was to live on the land and take the
rents, and that she would trust the
Queens word, although no lie estate
was reserved to herself in the deeds.
Other witnesses say that Pahau wish
ed the land put in the Queens name
lest Kenoelehua should mortgage
the land, and she (Pahau) eventually
lose it. Miss Lucy Peabody, an at
tendant of the Queen, who negotiated
the first purchase for 5000, says Pa
hau directed the conveyance to be in
the Queens name, so that her pa
hau's) husband should have nothing
to do with it. | think that all allie
cations of feebleness of intellect and
ignorance on the part eff Pahau, and
charges of fraudulent advantage
taken of this by respondent are not
sustained.
l find it to be established that
plaintiff knew of the disposition of
this property at the date of the deeds
or soon after.
The question of law remains. Do
these facts show that trust has re-
suited in favor of plaintiff?
The law as laid down in Perry on
Trusts, l VOL, s 126, was adopted by
this Court in OLepau ct al. Us. Ratapd
etui., October Term, 1887, Where,
upon a purchase of property, the
conveyance of the legal title is taken
in the name of one person, while the
consideration is given or paid by
another, the parties being strangers
10 each other, a resulting trust i'm
mediately arises from the transaction,
and the person named in the con-
veyance will be a trustee for the
party from whom the cOnsidera-
ton proceeds.V "Thfs rule has
its foundation in the natural pre-
sumption, in the absence of all re-
butting circumstances, that he who
supplies the purchase money intends
the purchase to be for his own bene-
fit, and not for another, and that the
conveyance in the name of another
is a matter of convenience and ar
rangement between the parties for
collateral purposes"
In 3 Story, s 1901, the author says:
"sWhere a man buys land in the
name of another, and pays the con-
sideration money, the land will gen
orally be held by the grantee in trust
for the person who so pays the con-
sideration money. This as an estab-
lished doctrine is now not open to
controversy.
Bispham says, Section so: "The
reason of this doctrine is, that the
man who pays the purchase money
is supposed to become, or to intend
to become, the owner of the property
and the beneficial title follows That
supposed intention. Adams Equity,
Section 80, says: Resulting trusts,
where the intention to sever the
legal and equitable ownership is ap-
parent from the attendant circum-
stances, occur where the estate has
been purchased in the name of one
person, and the purchase money or
consideration has proceeded from
another. In this case, the presump-
ton of law is that the party paying
for the estate intended il for his own
benefit, and that the nominal pur-
chaser is a mere trustee"
But it is contended that Z" as a
resulting trust may be shown by
parol proof, as a presumption of law
arising out of the transaction, so the
presumption may be rebutted by
paroI proof, showing that 10 trust
was intended by the parties, and
that it was the intention to confer
the beneficial interest upon the sup
posed nominal purchaser" Perry,
z 139. The same section reads
further: =" As the resulting trust is
a mere matter of equitable presump-
ton, it may be rebutted by facts
that negative the presumption and
whatever facts appear tending to
prove that it was intended that the
nominal purchaser should take the
beneficial interest, as we'll as the
legal title, negatives the presump-
ton"
1t must also be borne in mind that
g the presumption is in favor of the
trust resulting to the party paying