case mumma the widow and other the young child of jacob mumma plaintiff jacob  mumma the old son and heir defendant Lord chancellor April Eq can ab pl S c a  purchase by the father in the name of his infant son decree to be a  advancement and not a trust Jacob mumma the father purchase a copyhold  tenement in the name of the defendant his old son a infant of about eleven  year old the father afterward lie out pound in improvement pay the  purchasemoney and all the fine and enjoy during his life and have surrender to  the use of his will devise the same Vernon chancery case er p to his wife for  life and afterward to the other plaintiff his young child and make other  provision for the defendant who have recover in ejectment the bill be to be  relieve against it for that the defendant be but a trustee for his father in  the purchase butt the Lord chancellor conceive that he be but a Vernons  chancery case infant Blinkhorn v Feast ves but see king v denison v b in which  it be say arg that the principal case be not satisfactory at the time of the  purchase though the father do enjoy during his life that the purchase be a  advancement for the son and not a trust for the father the decree be whereupon  c his lordship declare that he be full satisfy the defendant Jacob at the time  of the premise be purchase be the very person admit tenant thereto by the rod  and have the legal estate and that Jacob the father do pay for the purchase of  the premise in question for the defendant Jacob advancement and not for  himself and that Jacob the father have no power to make a surrender of or to  bequeathe the say premise and therefore dismiss the plaintiff bill Reg lib b  fol vide the case on purchase by the father in the name of the child or in the  joint name of himself and his child full state by Mr Cox in his note to  Lamplugh v Lamplugh p wms the presumption it a favour of the child arise only  as a circumstance of evidence and m a be rebut by contrary evidence dyer v  dyer Cox Murless v franklin swan if therefore at the time of the purchase by  the father he do any act from which it appear he mean the estate to remain at  his own disposal the child will be declare to be a trustee Prankerd v Prankerd  S S Murless v franklin ub sup and in addition to these Jennings v Selleck ante  Vol and as to the son be a trustee for his father in the case of a conveyance  by the father for natural love and affection vide Baylis v Newton post as to  the doctrine of result trust it be consider saint that nothing can be construe  a result trust but such as be call trust by the operation of law Lloyd v  spillet atk d that the clause in the that sect of stat of fraud which save  result trust from the operation of the statute relate only to trust and  equitable interest and not to a use which be a legal estate Lamplugh v  Lamplugh p wms dly that the statute do not extend to save any result trust  save such as be result trust before the pass thereof lady Bellasis v Compton  post that that parole evidence be admit to rebut a result trust save such as  be result trust before the pass thereof lady Bellasis v Compton ub sup lady  Granville v duchess of Beaufort p wms and case cite in Mr Cox note there in  addition to which see nurse v finch Ves jun Hornsby v finch Ves jun SC dick v  Lambert Ves which see and also clennell v Lewthwaite Ves jun Rachfield v  careless p wms for the ground on which parole evidence be admit as to result  trust between executor and next of kin pole v Lord summer Ves Walton v Walton  Ves and see Langham v Sandford Ves and mere glad v yapp mad Lynn v beaver Tur  as to the case and circumstance under which a trust shall result the case be  very numerous and it will be impossible to do more in a short note than to  refer to the lead case divide for the sake of convenience and perspicuity  those which relate to land or to question between real and personal  representative from those which relate to personal estate or to question  between personal representative and next of kin those relate to the former be  Horton v Horton cro James gardener v Sheldon Vaughan Higham v baker cro  Elizabeth Hutton v Simpson post simpson v Hornsby pre Ch S c Starkey v brook p  wms Hobart v lady Suffolk post cruse v parley p wms and the case cite in note  there p Philips v Philip p wms post pre Ch Freem S c Willis v Lucas p wms  countess of Bristol v Hungerford post hill v bishop of London atk Sherrard v  Lord Harborough Amb Grosvenor v hallum Amb Gibson v Lord Mountford ves Leslie  v Devonshire bro Ch Rep Davidson v Foley ibidem Robinson v tailor ibidem Ves  jun S Hutchinson v Hamond bro Ch Rep these case go upon a principle that seem  to give birth to a twofold general rule saint that where land be give for  particular purpose in trust nothing more be subject than those purpose require  and if not exhaust there shall be a result trust after the purpose be answer  for the heir at law see king v denison v b and dly that though the whole of  the real property be dispose of yet if by any circumstance the disposition  fail or can take effect there shall be a result trust as to so much thereof as  shall not be affect by the disposition but this general rule seem subject to  exception as in the case of a will where the intention of testator appear to  be in favour of his executor Coningham v Mellish pre Ch Roger v Roger p wms  and in which a express distinction be take between a will and a conveyance  mallabar v mallabar Forr cook v Duckenfield atk Popham v lady Aylesbury Amb  wright v row bro Ch Rep Bland v Wilkins Feb cite in not there and it be clear  that at law where the real legal estate be devise away there can be no result  trust for the heir Hawkins v chapel atk a result trust of a copyhold estate as  well as of a freehold be within the statute of fraud how v how ante Vol and  case cite in not there and no difference whether the heir have a legal or  equitable right on a result trust Gibson v Lord Mountford ves the lead case  relate to personal estate where the question be between the personal  representative and next of kin be to be find in note to foster v Munt ante Vol  where the fund be mix the trust result in proportion so much as be of the real  estate to the heir and so much as be of the personal to the next of kin  Ackroyd v Smithson bro Ch Rep to Mr Scott argument in which the reader be  refer for a very profound discussion of this subject Spink v Lewis bro Ch Rep  Middleton v cater bro Ch Rep William v coade Ves smith v Claxton mad Jones v  Mitchell S S Dixon v Dawson S S Vernon chancery case er p