The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-09-19

future use. If necessary. The alleged
trust and the debts have no connection
with one an0th nor would am acknowl-
edgement in writing Doe a defence against
the debts or would It have been am orgi-
n-l defence before decree
Held: The matters alleged constitute no
ground for equity jurisdiction No pre-
cedent can be found. and this court is un-
willing TO make one. for a court OF equity
10 restrain creditor from enforcing pay
melt OF debts for which DE has got de-
cree. or which the debtor admits 10 be
just and due. until the creditor has ac-
knowledged in writing his liability i'm am
other and wholly different transaction.
RESULTING TRUST
Cox vs.. Cox. Affirmed. Opinion by
Judge Harrison
Suit by a. 10 recover from r. q resident
of Memphis temporarily in Wythe coun-
ty one-half proceeds of sale Of land ale
legged 10 have been held I'm trust by B.
for the benefit of himself and A.. and 90
secure same 10y attaching certain debts
due b. I'm said county.
Trial court held that held land IN
trust as alleged reference 10 settle GER
tain accounts between them TO ascer
tain the amount due a. from b. from
the proceeds of sale.
Held. ]: The bin shows on its face
proper matter for the jurisdiction of the
court and IN such case no exception %
jurisdiction can be taken otherwise than
by plea In abatement. Code sec $3.50. No
such plea having been fled it would be
now too late 10 raise the question even
II there had been valid objection TO the
Jurisdiction
There is no difficulty IN reaching the
conclusion that appelant-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
appcllec-A.-and himself In equal moiet-
les.
Whenever an estate ls purchased I'm
the name Of one person and the consid-
Grafton is paid by another. a trust is
created by operation of law i'm favor OF
the party paying the purchase NANCY.
This rule has it's foundation IN the
natural presumtion. i'm the absence OF an
rebuttng circumstances, that he who
supplies the purchase money intends the
purchase to be for his own benefit and not
for another. and that the conveyance i'm
the name of another is a matter of con-
yeyance and Arrangement between the
parties for collateral purposes and this
rule is vindicated by the experience Of
mankind" I Perry ON Trusts, secs.
1856.
RECESSION.
Grosh VS.. Ivanhoe Land & Improve
ment Company. Reversed. Opinion by
Judge Cardwen
This is a typical boon case. Grosh'
the appellant. purchased Of the lNanhoe
Land and improvement Company, through
an agent OF the company in the city OF
Richmond I'm July 1890 seven lots In the
town Of lvanhOc county OF Wythe, at an
average price of over $500 per lot paid
one-third of the purchase money I'M cash
and executed his two notes az one and
two years for the deferred payments ana
gave a deed OF trust 90 SECURE them. To
the October term of 1898 OF the Circuit
Court Of Wythe county. Grosh filed his
bill against the lvanhoe Land and I'M
provement Company and its trustee. for
O rescissiOn of the contract; TO recover
the cash payment made by him for the
lots, and to have a cancellation Of his
notes for the deferred payments and the
deed Of trust securing them; upon the
ground that he was induced 10 enter into
the contract solely upon the representa-
lions and promises made by the defend
ant connany through It's prospectus ad-
vertisernents &C and the agent from
whom the complainant purchased, which
repr esentAtions were claimed 70 have
been false. The defendant company In
answer 10 the bill. denied fraud In the
transactions, but admitted that It made