Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Implied-Trusts.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:57:17+00:00

Document:
(b) Constructive trusts (p. 269).
66 Livingston v. Livingston, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 537; Clarke v. Saxton, 1 Hill, Eq. (S. C.) 69; Berry v. Norris, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 302.
67 Jevon v. Bush, 1 Vera. 342.
68 1 Ferry, Trusts (4th Ed.) § 55.
69 Shryock v. Waggoner. 28 Pa. St. 430.
70 Carpenter v. Marnell, 3 Bos. & P. 40; Kip v. Bank, 10 Johns. (N. T.) 63; Ontario Bank v. Mumford, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 500.
71 Emery v. Chase, 5 Me. 232; Brewer v. Hardy, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 376; Hayes v. Kershow, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 258.
72 1 Perry, Trusts (4th Ed.) § 60; Neilson v. Lagow, 12 How. 107.
(a) Those where the grantor disposes of only the legal title (p. 266).
(b) Those where the object of the trust fails in whole or in part (p. 267).
(c) Those where the conveyance is taken in the name of another than the one paying the consideration (p. 267).
The ruling element in a resulting trust is the probable intention of the parties.76 In every case in which a resulting trust arises, wood's Appeal, 92 Pa. St 181; Lathrop v. Bampton, 81 Cal. 17; Hammond v. Pennock, 61 N. Y. 145; Johnson v. Johnson, 51 Ohio, 446, 38 N. E. 61.
74 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. (2d Ed.) § 1053; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122, 9 Sup. Ct. 447; Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70; Huxley v. Rice, 40 Mich. 73; Kayser v. Maugham, 8 Colo. 232, 6 Pac. 803.
75 Kayser v. Maugham, 8 Colo. 232, 6 Pac. 803; Bohm v. Bohm, 9 Colo. 100, 10 Pac. 790; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 2 Ala. 571; Connolly v. Keating, 102 Mich. 1, 60 N. W. 289; Cooksey v. Bryan, 2 App. D. C. 557; Rozell v. Vansyckle, 11 Wash. 79, 39 Pac. 270.
76 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. (2d Ed.) § 1031. Fraud is not a necessary element Tal-bott v. Barber, 11 Ind. App. 1, 38 N. E. 487. And see Thompson v. Marley, 102 Mich. 476, 60 N. W. 976.
There is the transfer of the legal title to land to one who is not in tended to hold the beneficial interest, or at least not all of it.77 Legal Title Only Conveyed.
78 Hogan v. Stray born, 65 N. C. 279; Paice v. Archbishop of Canterbury, 14 Yes. 364; Levet v. Needham, 2 Vern. 138; Cooke v. Dealey, 22 Beav. 196.
79 1 Perry, Trusts (4th Ed.) § 150; Armstrong v. Wolsey, 2 Wils. 19. And see Burt v. Wilson, 28 Cal. 632.
80 Farrington v. Barr, 36 N. H. 86; Philbrook v. Delano, 29 Me. 410.
81 An actual consideration will prevent a trust resulting. Hogan v. Jaques, 19 N. J. Eq. 123. The consideration need not be expressed in the instrument of conveyance. Bank of U. S. v. Housman, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 526; Miller v. Wilson, 15 Ohio, 108. A good consideration is sufficient. Groff v. Rohrer, 35 Md. 327; Sharington v. Strotton, 1 Plow. 298. Cf. Mildmay 's Case, 1 Coke, 175. But not friendship. Warde v. Tuddingham, 2 Rolle, Abr. 783, pl. 5. The earlier cases hold a mere nominal consideration sufficient to rebut the presumption. Barker v. Keete, Freem. 249. And see Sandes' Case, 2 Rolle, Abr. 791.
82 See post, p. 409, and cf. Dillaye v. Greenough, 45 N. Y. 438; Squire v. Harder, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 494; Jackson v. Cleveland, 15 Mich. 94. Cf. Blodgett v. Hildreth, 103 Mass. 484; Stevenson v. Crapnell, 114 111. 19, 28 N. E. 379; Mckinney v. Burns, 31 Ga. 295.
83 Shortridge v. Lamplugh, 2 Salk. 678; Anon., Brooke, 89.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 55
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 60
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1053
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1031
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 150
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.