c skett v Whitmore Lord keeper statute of fraud and perjury the plaintiff and  other creditor of William Whitmore decease prefer a bill against the defendant  Jo Whitmore for a discovery of asset and the only question be whether a term  freeman which be assign to Jo Whitmore be in trust for William the case be sir  Samuel clarke be seize in fee of the reversion of the land in question  expectant upon the death of Margaret Mumpford who be tenant for life make a  lease for year by way of mortgage to commence upon the death of Margaret  Mumpford afterward William Whitmore agree with sir Samuel clarke for the  purchase of the reversion and the term be assign to the defendant William  Whitmore may and the fee be convey to William Whitmore may in the conveyance  of the fee the consideration be mention to be pay by John and William but  there be a concurrence of many other circumstance whereby it plain appear that  John Whitmore be only a trustee for William and that the term be intend to  attend the inheritance but no declaration of trust in write and the defendant  have deny the trust by his answer the question be whether any decree can be  make by reason of the statute and it be say for the plaintiff that this court  have in several case where there be no write cause the execution of a  agreement as where a agreement be in part execute as where a tenant have take  a lease but no write sign and possession have be deliver and the tenant have  lie out his money in stock or where he have lie out money in building the  court have compel the make of the lease and so in the Lord nottingham time  where the purchase money be pay and the deed refuse to be seal he decree the  seal of they and so if a mortgagee refuse to seal a defeazance he have be  decree to do it the reason in the two first case be because the agreement be  in part execute and in the two last case there be a parent fraud but in this  case though the Lord keeper declare he be full satisfy that it be intend a  trust yet there be no write to declare it he be not satisfy to do it in  opposition to the very letter of the statute unless they can show he some  precedent and so take time to consider Ante c p c p and reference there give  to which add Lloyd v spillet atk Lamplugh v Lamplugh p wms and dyer v dyer  best report in walk on copyh