RESULTING TRUST. A trust raised by implication or construction of law, and pre sumed to exist from the supposed intention of the parties and the nature of the transac tion.
All trusts created by implication or con struction of law are often included under the general term implied trusts ; but these are commonly distinguished into implied or resulting and constructive trusts ; resulting or presumptive trusts being those which are implied or presumed from the supposed in tention of the parties and the nature of the transaction ; constructive trusts, such as are raised independently of any such intention, and which are forced on the conscience of the trustee by equitable construction and the operation of law. Story, Eq. Jur. § 1095; 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 510; 2 id. 198; 3 Swanst 585; Ross v. Hegeman, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 373; Thomas v. Walker, 6 Humphr. (Tenn.) 93.
Where, upon a purchase of property, the conveyance • of the legal estate is taken in the name of one person, while the considera tion is paid by another, the parties being strangers to each other, a resulting or pre sumptive trust immediately arises, and the person named in the conveyance will be a trustee for the party from whom the consid eration proceeds ; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 126, 50 Am. Dec. 617 ; Livermore v. Aldrich, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 435; Partridge v. Havens, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 618 ; Strimpfier v. Rob
erts, 18 Pa. 283, 57 Am. Dec. 606 ; Hellman v. Messmer, 75 Cal. 166, 16 Pac. 766; Carter v. Challen, 83 Ala. 135, 3 South. 313 ; Price v. Kane, 112 Mo. 412, 20 S. W. 609; and if he conveys the property to the cestui que trust, such conveyance is good as against the creditors of the trustee ; Garner v. Bank, 151 U. S. 420, 14 Sup. Ct. 390, 38 L. Ed. 218.
Resulting trusts are raised by the law from the presumed intention of the parties, and the natural equity that one who fur nishes the means for the acquisition of property should enjoy its benefits. But it cannot arise where an obligation exists on his part, legal or moral, to provide for the grantee, as in the case of a husband for his wife, or a father for his child, as under such circumstance the relation to the party is of itself sufficient evidence to rebut the pre sumption of a resulting trust, for in such cases arises the contrary presumption of an advancement for the grantee's benefit; Jack son v. Jackson, pi. U. S. 125, 23 L. Ed. 258.
Where land is bought by a husband with the separate property of a married woman, and the title is taken in his name, a trust results to her, in the absence of any agree ment to the contrary; Ross v. Hendrix, 110