Summary

Charles E. Grinnell Subsequent Payments Under Resulting Trusts (1887)

Practically also it is important to insist upon the distinction between the creation of the trust by the loan of a note, and the evidence or want of evidence of the trust, consisting in the payment of the note; for when the note has not been paid, the maker of it, if fraudulently inclined, sometimes takes advantage of that to deny that any trust exists.
Source: Wikisource

Charles E. Grinnell Subsequent Payments Under Resulting Trusts (1887)

When, for instance, payments subsequent to a grant are held to show such a trust they are merely parts of a transaction which as a whole is held to prove that at the time of the grant a trust was raised.
This distinction between proving the trust, and creating it, is often overlooked, and is important in the cases where notes are given for the land by one party for the benefit of another, and the payments in money are made subsequently by that other.
Source: Wikisource

Charles E. Grinnell Subsequent Payments Under Resulting Trusts (1887)

Sometimes a shrewd speculator, who induces a tool of no pecuniary responsibility to sign notes for him, and to take the title of land for him, by promising to take care of the whole matter, so covers his tracks that the poverty of the pretended owner, which makes it impossible for him to be the real purchaser, is the chief evidence of the trust, [9] and the construction that the notes were themselves a loan to the person for whose benefit they were, in fact, given, is the chief point by which the raising of the trust can be established.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature