{"id":9145,"date":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","date_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legaldictionary.lawin.org?p=9145"},"modified":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","modified_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","slug":"dyer-v-dyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawlegal.eu\/dyer-v-dyer\/","title":{"rendered":"Dyer V. Dyer"},"content":{"rendered":"
((1788), 2 Cox 92). Dyer paid the purchase-money for certain property, and took the conveyance to himself, his wife Mary, and a son William, jointly. Dyer survived his wife, and then died, devising all his interest in these premises to the plaintiff, who filed his bill against the son William, insisting that as the purchase-money was all paid by Dyer, his son William, the defendant, was but a trustee. Held, that though if no relationship existed there would be a resulting trust in favour of the person paying the purchase-money, yet the circumstance of the nominee being the child of the purchaser operated to rebut the resulting trust, and the defendant took the property beneficially as an advancement from his father<\/p>\n<\/h4>\n
You might be interested in these references tools:<\/p>\n