ambler case between William lane on the behalf of himself and the other  creditor of John Dighton decease and james lucy Dighton old son and heir at  law of the say John Dighton plaintiff and Elizabeth Dighton widow and  administratrix of John Dighton and her young child by Dighton be eight in  number and other defendant in chancery that Jan at the roll trust money follow  into land upon evidence lib Reg b foe a by indenture of that July make after  the marriage of John Dighton with the say Elizabeth her fortune which be  personalty and amount to more than pound be assign to four person upon trust  to pay the interest to he for life and then to his wife for life and the  principal to their child as they or the survivor shall appoint and in default  of appointment to all of they on that January Dighton buy at a auction a  estate in Oxfordshire call SherborneWoods for pound and make a deposit of  pound and there be some difficulty in adjust a mortgage interest upon the  estate it be by write agree between he and the vendor that he shall lie out  the remainder of the purchase money be pound in per cent bank annuity in the  name of certain person upon the trust therein mention and shall thereupon be  let into the possession of the estate and shall have a conveyance thereof as  soon as convenient can be Mr Dighton accord on the that may lie out the money  in the purchase of pound S d bank annuity but not have sufficient of his own  he prevail on the trustee to let he have pound S of the trust money to make up  the pound he be let into possession of the estate and afterward have a  conveyance of it he also buy another estate at Ascot in Oxfordshire he die in  testate on saint January the bill be bring for payment of the debt and to have  the settlement make good out of the personal estate and distribution of the  residue the widow and young ambler child by their answer say that part of the  trust money have be lie out in the purchase of SherborneWoods and Ascot estate  and ought to be consider as the trust money proof be make by the defendant  from the book of child the banker with who Dighton keep cash and from the book  of the SouthSea company that on the say that of may Dighton by letter of  attorney from the trustee sell pound south sea annuity which produce after  payment of brokerage pound S also a paper all of the handwriting of Dighton be  a calculation of his fortune in which he take notice that the trust stock have  be sell and the money lie out from time to time in the purchase of land and on  mortgage and that the only sum remain in the trustee name be a mortgage of  pound due from George Dacre Esq so that there will be want pound to make up  the trust money the cause come on to be hear on the that may by consent before  sir Thomas clarke master of the roll when the question whether the estate can  be charge with any part of the trust money be debate on the part of the  plaintiff James Lucy Dighton it be argue by Mr capper that if trustee lie out  trust money in lie to court will charge the land with it upon admission of the  trustee but will not receive evidence to prove it for that will be contrary to  the statute of fraud which require trust of land to be in write unless by  operation of law as if land be buy in the name of a evidence may be give that  the purchase money be pay by b that be a trust raise by operation of law and  the case of Kirk v web Prec in chancery and of Halcot v Marchent pre Ch be  cite as authority on the general principle it be further say that if evidence  can be receive it ought to prove precise in what land the money be lie out  that in this case it be only lose say that the trust money be from time to  time lie out in land heron v heron Prec in Charles Kindar v Milward vern on  the other side it be argue by I on the behalf of the defendant that the  evidence ought to be read and that ambler it be sufficient to ground a inquiry  if not to make a immediate decree that there be case of a trust though not  express ambler er p declare in write where the admission of the party be  sufficient rial v rial d February Warley v sawbridge in the exchequer easter  Geo Coryton v barn Prec in Charles Symondson v Tweed Prec in Charles so if it  appear in write though make for a different purpose degg v degg wms that the  true distinction be between evidence of fact and general evidence the former  ought to be receive the other not upon this ground in the case of a purchase  in the name of b evidence may be give that a pay the purchase money in Kirk v  web the master of the roll who with Powell I be call in to the assistance of  Lord summer chancellor say if it have be plain and express prove that the  estate be buy with the profit of the trust money he think it may have be  otherwise and in Halcot v merchant the court say it be too hard for he because  there be no express proof of the application of the trust money in rial v rial  atk there be no express admission but only that credit be give in account and  on that the court send the matter to inquiry by master what the court say upon  that occasion be very material his honour after take time for consideration on  that June follow give his opinion the general question be whether the court  can follow the trust money into land consistent with the statute of fraud and  perjury and the case determine upon it it divide itself into two question  saint whether the evidence can be receive d whether it be sufficient if  receive for the plaintiff be cite the case of Kirk v web Prec Ch Prec Ch and  Halcot v Marchent and the reason upon which those case be determine that be  that there must be a express trust in write to affect land and that evidence  can be receive the only case except in the statute be operation of law and  extinguishment as if a buy land in the name of b a may prove that he pay the  consideration and there will be result trust for he so where there be a  declaration as to part of the land the rest result see Ambrose v Ambrose p wms  Willis v Willis atk Gascoigne v Thiring vern Lloyd v spillet atk see wither v  wither ante on the other side be cite rial v rial in Ch that February in that  case compassion take place and ambler inquiry be direct whether any of the  money be lie out in land in Jones v Jones that July the same inquiry be direct  in Hardacre v messenger that march sir John strange declare the land liable  without direct a inquiry if it be res integral I shall think the evidence not  admissible within the statute but I must not be wise than my predecessor  therefore refer it to the master to inquire whether any and what part of the  trustmoney be lie out in the purchase of the Sherborne wood and Ascot estate  ox either and which of they master bonner on that December report the marriage  and settlement the purchase of Sherborne wood and the agreement as before  state and that Dighton do by virtue of a letter of attorney from the three  survive trustee on the that may sell pound south sea annuity part of the trust  fund and receive the money which after deduct the brokerage amount to pound S  and on the same day lie out pound in the purchase of pound S d bank per cent  annuity for the purpose therein mention and that no proof have be lie before  he that Dighton have money sufficient to purchase the say pound S d bank per  cent annuity without employ in such purchase the say pound S d by he receive  for the say pound trust stock or some part thereof and as the say Dighton do  on the say that may sell the whole of the say stock and on the same day  purchase the pound S bank annuity for the purpose before mention do conceive  that the say John Dighton do intend to and do real invest the same in the  purchase of the say pound S d bank annuity for the purpose aforesaid and he  conceive the pound S be part of the trust money comprise in the settlement be  lie out and invest by the intestate John Dighton in the purchase of the estate  call Sherborne wood in manner aforesaid and that it appear to he that the  estate be afterward convey to Dighton the cause come on for further direction  on that January his honour decree as follow it appear by the master report  that the sum of pound S ld part of the trust money or fund be part of he  portion of the defendant ambler Elizabeth Dighton agree to be secure by her  marriage article of that lily be invest by John Dighton her husband together  with other ambler er p money of his own in the purchase of the Sherborne wood  estate declare that the same ought to be consider in the same plight and  condition as if the same have not be invest and to be subject to the trust and  limitation in the say article Bial v rial that February S c atk hill ms p bill  by legatee of John rial against the executrix and heir at law of Jonathan rial  for satisfaction out of asset against the executrix and as against the heir at  law to have satisfaction out of a estate purchase by Jonathan rial as the  plaintiff insist with the asset of John rial the original testator the  defendant the executrix admit that as to one particular estate it appear by  her testator paper c that it be purchase with pound of the testator John rial  money proof be read that Jonathan rial after testator death purchase several  estate and that before that time he be a poor person and not able to pay for  they out of his own money the counsel for the plaintiff insist that the heir  at law be to be consider as a trustee of they as far as the estate appear to  be purchase with the asset of John rial and the case of Balgney v Hamilton d  July be cite for that purpose on the other side the case of Kirk v web pre in  Ch and Kender v Milward vern be rely on that money can not be follow into land  Lord Hardwicke chancellor the court have be very cautious of follow money into  land but have do it in some case No one will say but the court will if it be  actual prove that the money be lie out in land the doubt with the court in  these case have be on the proof there be difficulty in admit proof parole  proof may let in perjury but it have always be do when the fact have be admit  in the answer of the person lie it out see cottington v Fletcher atk if the  executor of John rial have be a party and admit it there will have be no doubt  but the admission be by his representative which though it do not bind the  heir be ground for a enquiry the way of charge the heir be by consider he as a  ambler trustee as when land be purchase by one in the name of another it be a  result trust by law and out of the statute ante and upon enquiry a little  matter will do to make it a charge pro tanto refer it to the master to inquire  whether the estate be purchase with pound of the testator money or not Balgney  v Hamilton d July as take from the decree at the register office Alexander  Hamilton by will direct his executor to sell his household and other good and  place the money on land security and to pay out of the interest pound ayear to  his wife till his daughter attain and then to pay his widow only pound ayear  and give his personal estate subject to the say annuity to his daughter and if  she die before and without issue male then to the defendant Hamilton and make  his wife and heir executor the widow alone prove the will and have possess  asset buy a estate in fee which cost pound she die the that of February and  the plaintiff take possession of the estate but as be positive swear in the  defendant answer deliver the purchase and titledeed to the defendant from the  death of the daughter who die under without issue the defendant receive the  rend till about a year ago when the tenant at the instigation of the plaintiff  refuse to pay the defendant the rend any long bill by the plaintiff claim the  estate under the heir at law of the widow inter alian to have the deed deliver  up upon read several deed and proof in the cause the court declare that the  defendant be entitle to pound the purchasemoney of the estate as be part of  the personal estate of Alexander Hamilton devise over to he in Lench v Lench  Ves sir W grant say whatever doubt may have be former entertain on the subject  it be now settle that money may in this way be follow into the land in which  it be invest and that a claim of this sort may be support by parole evidence  see Lewis v Madocks Ves savage v carol ball Bea see Sugden vend pch Deg v Deg  p W and note Sowden v Sowden bro c so if a executor for the benefit of the  testator estate invest part of it in the fund the money may be follow wait v  whorwood atk and see Liebman v Harcourt mere tailor V plumer m S ambler er p