case kirk versus web post vern Eq Abr c wms atk a trustee purchase land out of  the profit receive out of the trust estate and take the conveyance in his own  name though possible if he be unable to make other satisfaction for the profit  so misapply those land may be sequester yet they can be decree to be a trust  for the Cestuique trust no more than if a borrow money of b and therewith  purchase land these purchase land be no trust for b for it be not a trust in  write and result trust it can be because that will be to contradict the deed  by parole proof direct against the statute of fraud but if the purchase have  be recite to have be make with the profit of the trust estate this appear in  write may ground a result trust the present question in this case be occasion  by a construction that be mad by the house of peer upon a settlement and will  of sir Henry wood which together make but one conveyance whereby his estate be  settle on his daughter upon her marriage then intend and afterward solemnized  between her and the then earl now duke of Southampton the estate be convey to  trustee whereof the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry sir Henry brother be  precedent in chancery one and the clause that breed the first dispute be a  limitation whereby the trust of the estate be limit after the death of the  duke of Southampton without issue to the duchess for life c and after to the  bishop for life c and after to sir Caesar Cranmer all wood for life c the  duchess die in the lifetime of the duke without issue and the bishop conceive  himself to be then entitle in his own right enter and enjoy the profit for  several year and till his death and make his will and the defendant executor  and devise several legacy to charity and devise all his land to the defendant  after the death of the bishop sir Henry wood enter and the duke of Southampton  be then advice that though there be no limitation of the trust of the estate  to he but only that after his death without issue by the duchess it shall go  to the duchess for life c yet by the plain intention of sir Henry wood it do  belong to he and be in the case of a trust will be so expound upon which the  duke of Southampton bring a bill in this court against sir Caesar Cranmer to  have a conveyance of the estate for his life and a account of the profit and  the court be of opinion with the duke that by the intention of sir Henry wood  he be to have the estate for his life and decree accord but sir Caesar Cranmer  bring a appeal in the house of peer and the lord reverse the decree for that  there be no estate limit to the duke of Southampton and it not be limit over  till after his death the interest during his life belong to the heir of sir  Henry wood as a undisposed interest the two defendant who together with sir  Caesar Cranmer be coheir to sir Henry wood bring a bill to have two three of  the estate during the life of the duke of Southampton and obtain a decree  accord precedent in chancery upon which the plaintiff Kirk as administrator to  his wife who be the only child of John wood who be old brother of sir Henry  wood and as such be during her life entitle to the profit that have be receive  by the bishop out of sir Henry estate insist that the bishop executor ought  out of his personal estate to make they good to he and that the bishop bad out  of the profit of sir Henry wood estate purchase several land which be purchase  with his wife money be a trust for her and now for he as her administrator and  ought to be decree to he in case he have not a full satisfaction out of the  bishop personal estate upon hear of the cause the personal estate be decree  liable to the plaintiff satisfaction and a account order to be take of it and  the master to report what charity or other legacy the defendant the executor  have pay and at what time and what purchase the bishop have make in his  lifetime and the particular time and value of each purchase and what of the  say purchase have be make with the profit of sir Henry wood estate and then  thecourt will give direction as to what payment shall be allow to the executor  and how far the estate purchase by the bishop shall be liable to make the  plaintiff satisfaction precedent in chancery er p the master make his report  certify the purchase make by the bishop and that it appear to he by proof of a  man who receive great part of the profit of the trust and pay the money for  several of the purchase that such particular part of the purchasemoney of the  several purchase be the profit of the trust videlicet sir Henry wood estate  the matter stand this day to be hear upon the master report my Lord disallow  the executor all the charity and other legacy which be very considerable which  he pay though they be pay before this bill be bring precedent in chancery then  the matter as to the land be debate and my Lord seem to be of opinion for the  plaintiff as to that too and say that the bishop be a trustee though he do not  take himself to be one and that when a trustee lie out the money of Cestuique  trust in land he think the land may be follow but it be strong insist upon by  the other side that they can not and that it be a matter of great consequence  and never do before my Lord appoint to consider of it till a further day and  desire the assistance of the master of the roll and Mr justice Powell on argue  the case before they it be insist for the plaintiff that it be but justice and  reason that the land purchase with the profit shall go in the same manner as  the profit themselves will have go and though it do not appear in the case  that bring the whole purchase have be make with the trustmoney that be through  the trustee owe fault who part it be to have keep the account and it do appear  in the cause that he have receive enough of the trust estate to make all the  purchase and therefore it shall be intend it be all so employ unless the  contrary be prove by the defendant and it be compare to the case where a man  mix his money with another man heap he shall lose his own money it be say if  this fact have appear in the deed it will have be a result trust and that this  be the same thing as if a guardian lie out the money of his ware in land and  leaves no personal estate shall not the land be liable and if a bill have be  bring against the bishop these land may certain have be sequester in his hand  and shall his devisee be in a better condition and the case of pier and  Harwood and some other case be cite on the other side it be say that it must  be consider how it be before the statute of fraud and perjury and how it will  be since before the statute it be never hold to be a trust unless there be a  declaration in the deed to that purpose and much less can it precedent in  chancery be so since the statute for by the statute there can be no trust  unless it be declare in write which be not in this case and if it be a result  trust it be make so by parole proof contrary to the deed which be direct  contrary to the statute and will introduce all the mischief that it intend to  prevent that it will introduce a utter uncertainty into all man title for the  best title may be spoil by prove the purchasemoney to be another person and it  be say that this can no more be a trust than if a have borrow money of b and  lie it out in land that land can be a trust for b and the case of Cox and car  and other case be cite justice Powell say the precedent that have be cite on  the plaintiff part be nothing to the purpose so that it be a case without  precedent and of great and dangerous consequence he cite the case of Walter de  Chirton who be the king receiver and it be find that he purchase land with the  king money yet this be never hold to be a result trust not even in the king  case that it be against the statute of fraud and perjury and will let in all  the mischief that it intend to prevent therefore he be of opinion the  plaintiff can not be relieve the master of the roll be of opinion that as this  case be the plaintiff can not be relieve and cite the case of Farrington  versus forth and Inst title court of chancery and the case of mare and saint  John but he say if it have be express and plain prove that these purchase have  be make with the profit of the trust estate he think it may have be otherwise  my Lord chancellor be of the same opinion with Mr justice Powell on appeal to  the house of lord this decree be affirm march precedent in chancery er p  precedent in chancery de boundary S HILLARII in curian porter