New Britain herald., 1930-12-06
ANDREWS AWARDED
 W. J.LONG'S HOME
Continued From First Pagc)

oration of Long building q house on the lot and thus becoming q near neighbor Of Andrews. In this con- reCtion the defendants lay stress on the claim that Long was an estute business man and would not have made an agreement or contract whereby the house which he was to erect on the land would become the property of Andrews at Longs death for the mere conveyance of the use of the lot which at the time was not worth more than four or five hun drcd dollars.
 Life Long Friends
 This arrangement between the parties. however, cannot be consd cred as a mere contract between them. They were lifelong friends. as intimate. as more than one Wit ness expressed it, as any two men could be. Moreover. Long was re- putcd to be a man of moro or less means. and aside from his wife had TO near relatives. He expected no children. It is perfectly consistent, therefore, that he was willing for the house to go to Andrews his very tear friend.
 After the conveyance lis con- duct was not inconsistent with this view. It is true that he made state mcnts during his lifetime that An drcws had given the lot 10 him. He !. firm c h Y statements that on his death the house and lot were to go back or revert 10 Andrews. His statements, therefore. are not so inconsistent with Andrews testimony that it ought not to be believed. I cannot find otherwise. therefore, than that the deeding of the land to Long was not a gift and was without consideration otherwise than dis closed by the agreement between them.
 Tn considering the legal rcla- tions between these parties upon this state of facts, 1t is not neces- sary to consider what would have been the legal relations Of the par ties if Mrs Long had survived her husband. or if Long during his life time had conveyed the property to a bona -fide purchaser for Nalue, for these situations have not arisen and are not before the court,
 No Gift of Property
 we. therefore, have the situation where there was no absolute gift Of the property and where there was no consideration for the conveyance other than that Long would build upon it and live there, and at his death il would revert to Andrews. If the rights of Long and Andrews had arisen upon these facts while Long was alive it could not, in my opln- on. be successfully maintained that the court would not have declared that Long was holding the prop ortN in trust for Andrews, at least so long as Long might live. These defendants. however, do not stand in any better position than Long. They are not bona fide purchasers for value They at the most are only the objects Of Longs bounty and only to the extent Long may have left property sufficient to enable them to enjoy that bountyA
 The defep dants concedf that resulting or implied trust arises where the consideration is paid by one and title taken in the name of another. It has also been held IS be- tween husband and wife, where the presumption of gift is rebuttod, q wife will hold property in trust for her husband. where there was no valid consideration for the convey ancc and where the facts and cir are reasonably deduct iblc that that was the inteptlon of the parties.
 Tt has also been held that where one conveys property by deed to a stranger under an oral agreement that the latter was to sell it for the benefit of the convcyor re- sulting trust arises. 1 am unable to distinguish these cases from those like the one in question where the owner of the property conveys it 10 a third party without consideration.
 Cites Supreme Court Decision
 Our supreme court said in the case of Murray vs. Glinzing, G4 Conn. 85 G895) quoting Blackstone: Every deed which is offectual to convey land must be upon consider ation. This it is stated in Blackstone Commentaries, Vol. 2 at page 296, where the requisites of q deed are mentioned: Secondly, the deed must be founded upon a good and suffi- cient consideration. A deed also, or other grant, made without any Consid iteration, is, as 1t were, of no effect; for it is construed to inurc. or 10 be cffcctuaI only for the use Of the Srantor himself The necessity of consideration in a decd is to prevent d trust resulting in favor ot the grantor.'
 'I am, therefore, of the opinion that judgment should be entered in favor Of the plaintiff and that title 10 the premises in question is vested lA the plaintiff, free and clear of any claim of defendants and of anyone claiming under them, and the de- cree may be entered to that effect
 Robinson, Robinson X Cole Of