Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-19

wanted for future use, II necessary. The
alleged trust and the debts have no con.
nection with one another. nor would ar
acknowledgment In writing be a defence
against the debts, or would 1t have been
an original defence before decree.
Held; The matters alleged constitute
no ground for equity Jurisdiction. No
precedent can be found, and this court
Is unwilling to make one for a court of
equity 10 restrain a creditor from en-
forcing payment OF debts for which
he has got decree, or which the debtor
admits to be just and due, until the credi-
tor has acknowledged I'm writing his
liability in another and wholly different
transaction.
RESULTING TRUST.
Cox VS.. Cox. Affirmed. Opinion by Har-
rison. j.
Suit by A to recover from b, resi-
dent of Memphis, temporarily in Wythe
county, one half proceeds Of sale Of land
alleged TO have been held In trust by Il
for benefit of himself and A; and to Sc
cure same by attaching certain debts
due b in said county.
Trial court held that b held land in
trust as alleged reference 10 settle GER
tain accounts between them TO ascer-
tain amount due A from b from the pro-
ceeds of sale.
Held, /. The bill shows on its face
proper matter for the Jurisdiction OF the
court and in such case no exception to
Jurisdiction can be taken otherwise than
by plea in abatement. Code, section
1850. No such plea having been filed it
would be now too late TO raise the ques-
ton. even II there had been valid objec-
ton to the jurisdiction.
There is no difficulty in reaching the
conclusion that appellant b held this
land in trust for the benefit. first, OF his
brother, NJ; secondly, for his father, as
Ms heir, and lastly, for the benefit of
appellee. A, and himself in equal
moieties.
whenever an estate is purchased In
the name Of one person and the consde-
ration is paid by another, a trust Is
created by operation OF law in favor OF
the party paying the purchase money.
This rule has It's foundation in
the natural presumption, in the absence
OF all rebutting circumstances, that he
who supplies the purchase money intends
the purchase to be for his own benefit,
and not for another. and that the con-
veyance in the name OF another Is
matter of convenience and arrangement
poses. and this rule is vindicated by the
experience Of mankind" l Perry on
Trusts, secs. 1856
RESCISSION.
Grosh VS.. Ivanhoe Land and Improve
ment Company. Reversed. Opinion
by Cardwell
This was boom" case. Grosh, the
annellant. purchased Of the Ivanhoe
ont
through an agent of the company in the
CITY OF Richmond In July, 1880. seven
lots In the town OF Ivanhoe, county or
Wythe. at an average price of over 800
per lot. paid one-third OF the purchase
money In cash and executed his two
notes at one and two years for the de-
ferred payments, and gave deed or
trust TO secure them. To the October
term. 1899 of the Circuit Court or
Wythe county, Grosh filed his bill
against the Iyanhoe Land and Improve
ment Company and its trustee. for
rescission of the contract; to recover
the Dash payment made by him for the
lots. and TO have cancellation or his
notes for the deferred payments and
the deed OF trust securing them. upon
the ground that he was induced 10 en-
ter into the contract solely upon the
representations ana promises MADE Dy
the defendant company through its
prospectus, advertisements, etc, and the
agent from whom the complainant
purchased, which representations were
charged to nave been false. The de-
PENDANT company. in answer to the bill.
denied fraud In the transaction. but adj
mltted that 1t made the representations,
ETC.. contained in Its prospectus, maps.
ETC.. exhibits OF which were filed with
the bill. and that the agent OF the de-
PENDANT company who sold the lots TO
the complainant had the advertisement
and map. Exhibits c." and a." In
his possession at the time the sale to
CON plainant was made, and was au-
thorized TO make the representations
therein contained. Exhibit c." was an
advertisement OF a private sale OF the
defendant company's lots to take place