Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Express-trusts-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 23:55:49+00:00

Document:
But in North Carolina, though there is no such statutory provision. one who has made a conveyance absolute in terms cannot show an oral trust in himself. Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N. Car. 227, 63 S. E. 1028; Jones v. Jones, 164 N. Car. 320, 80 S. B. 430.
48. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 83; Browne, Stat, of Frauds Sec. 106; Myers v. Myers, 167, 111. 52, 47 N. E. 309.
49. Morton v. Tewart, 2 Y. & C. Ch. 67; Carter v. Gibson, 29 Neb. 324, 26 Am. St. Rep. 381, 45 N. W. 634; See Bellamy v. Burrow Cas. temp. Talbot 97; McCreary v. Gewinner, 102 Ga. 528, 29 S. E. 960.
50. Tierney v. Wood, 19 Beav. 330; Kronheim v. Johnson, L. R. 7 Ch. Div. 60.
II Am. Rep. 67; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423, 17 N. E. 899; Second Unitarian Soc. v. Woodbury, 14 Me. 281; Maccubbin v. Cromwell's Ex'rs, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 157; Safford v. Rantoul, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 233; Lane v. Ewing, 31 Mo. 75, 77 Am. Dec. 635; McVay v. McVay, 43 N. J. Eq. 47, 10 Atl. 178.
52. 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1006; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 294, Fed. Cas. No. 7,266; McClellan v. McClellan, 65 Me. 500; Urann v. Coates, 109 Mass. 581; Myers v. Myers, 167 111. 52, 47 N. E. 309; But a statute requiring the trust to be manifested and created in writing, appears to have been regarded as making a subsequent writing insufficient. Richardson v. Woodbury, 43 Me. 206. See 1 Ames, Cas. Trusts, 178.
53. 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec.Sec. 82, S4 85. Hampton v. Spencer, 2 Vern. 288; Garnsey v. Gothard, 90 Cal. 603, 27 Pac. 516; Lynch v. Rooney, 112 Ca. 279, 44 Pac. 565; Kingsbury v. Burnside, 58 111. 310, 11 Am. Rep. 67; Whistler v. Sprague, 224 111. 461, 79 N. E. 667; Nesbitt v. Stevens, 161 Ind. 519, 69 N. E. 256; McClellan v. McClellan, 65 Me.
500; Urann v. Coates, 109 Mass. 581; Nolan v. Garrison, 151 Mich. 138, 115 N. W. 58; McVay v. Mc-Vay, 43 N. J. Eq. 47, 10 Atl. 178; Eagle Moin. etc. Co. v. Hamilton, 14 N. Mex. 217, 91 Pac. 718; Robert's App., 92 Pa. St. 407.
54. Stringer v. Montgomery, 111 Ind. 489, 12 N. E. 474; Prentis v. Prentis, 189 Mich. 1, 155 N. W. 473; Borst v. Nalle, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 423.
55. Robbins v. Robbins, 89 N. Y. 251; Walford v. Farnham, 44 Minn. 159, 46 N. W. 295. Eaton v. Eaton, 35 N. J. L. 290. And it has bean decided that if the trustee makes a sale of the land under the oral trust, the cestui may recover the proceeds. Bork v. Martin, 132 N. Y. 280, 30 N. E. 584, 28 Am. St. Rep. 570.
56. King v. Bushnell. 121 111. 656, 13 N. E. 245; Johnston v. Jiek-ling, 141 Iowa 444, 119 N. W. 746; Collins v. Collins, 98 Md. 473, 57 Atl. 597, 103 Am. St. Rep. 408; Blaha v. Borgman, 142 Wis. 43, 124 N. W. 1047. Contra, Pruitt v. Pruitt, 57 S. C. 155.
57. Polk v. Boggs, 122 Cal. 114, 54 Pac. 536; McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Griffin, 116 Iowa 401,90 N. W. 84; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423; Bailey v. Wood 211 Mass. 37, 97 N. E. 902; Patton v. Chamberlain, 44 Mich. 5, 5 N. W. 1037; Columbia Bank v. Baldwin, 64 Neb. 732, 90 N. W. 890; Jamison v. Miller, 27 N. J. Eq. 586; Lockren v. Rustan, 9 N. Dak. 43, 81 N. W. 60; Richmond v. Bloch, 36 Ore. 590, 60 Pac. 385; Gottstein v. Wist, 22 Wash. 581, 61 Pac. 715; Martin v. Remington, 100 Wis. 540, 69 Am. St. Rep. 941, 76 N. W. 614. But that the claims of creditors take precedence of the oral trust, see O'Hara v. Dilworth 72 Pa. 397. Occasionally the claims of creditors have been supported on the ground of estoppel, that is, that they had been induced to give credit to the trustee by reason of the fact that the cestui que trust allowed the ownership to appear to be in him. Pierce v. Hower, 142 Ind. 626, 42 N. E. 223; Mertens v.
Schlemme, 68 N. J. Eq. 544, 59 Atl. 808.
A judgment creditor would seem to stand in no better position in this regard than a simple contract creditor, in view of the general rule (post Sec. 670) that a judgment binds only the actual interest of the judgment debtor. And it has been occasionally so decided. Hayes v. Reger, 102 Ind. 524, 1 N. E. 386; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Griffin, 116 Iowa 397; Sieman v. Austin, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Purney v. Fellows, 15 Vt. 525; Main v. Bosworth, 77 Wis. 660, 46 N. W. 1047; Blaha v. Borgman, 142 Wis. 43, 124 N. W. 1047. See Price v. Brown, 4 S. C. 144. Contra, Connoi v. Follansbee, 59 N. H. 124.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.