c woodman v morrel morin ux justice Atkins trust result post case the  plaintiff in the year do lend pound and for security thereof he take a  mortgage of a copyhold by way of surrender in the name of his daughter who be  the wife of the defendant in the year he give pound more and purchase the say  copyhold estate absolute and take a absolute surrender thereof in the name of  his say daughter but reserve a estate thereout to his wife for life in the  year the plaintiff be in prison the defendant marry the say daughter of the  plaintiff the plaintiff now prefer his bill against the defendant to have the  execution of the say estate to he allege that his daughter name be use only in  trust for he the defendant pretend that this be design for a provision for the  say daughter and he do often say when tax c be demand of he that they must go  to his daughter for the estate be she but it appear that the plaintiff have  the possession of the say estate ever since and be now in possession judge  Atkins be of opinion upon the whole matter that this be a trust for the father  who be the plaintiff he have pay the whole consideration and have enjoy it  ever since freeman notwithstanding his daughter have be now marry these eleven  or twelve year and a case be cite betwixt Legay and Legay where the father put  in a stock of pound in copartnership in his son name for merchandising and his  son go beyond sea and do act there in relation to the trade which be allege as  a great consideration why it shall be to the benefit of the son he leave his  country thereupon and yet when he come over the father prefer his bill against  he it be decree a trust for the father and so the case of the Lord grey  purchase land in his son name be cite where it be decree a trust for the  father ante case see note there and judge Atkins cite a old case in  Fitzherbert title Subpna where the father be far amiss and like to die settle  his land upon one of his child but afterward recover have a mind to his land  again and come into chancery it be decree that he shall have it again and that  that settlement be make in prospect of his death shall not bind he after his  recovery but shall be a trust for he and he say that this be one of the first  case that appear to we of the chancery take jurisdiction of these matter and  in this case these difference be take where a man purchase land in the name of  a stranger and of a child for in the first case it be presume a trust for the  purchaser but in the latter the presumption be that it be a provision for the  child if there be no declaration of the father to the contrary in the case of  a child there be a great deal of difference where the father who be the  purchaser be dead and have make no declaration for there it shall be presume a  provision for the child but in this case the father be live and by his bill  declare it a trust for himself which take away the presumption and this differ  it from all the case that freeman er p have be put of a presumptive provision  because those be case where the contest be betwixt the heir and the child in  who name the purchase be make b a this be betwixt the father himself who make  the purchase and the child in who name it be take and so there be a manifest  diversity freeman but it be agree that if it can be prove that the father do  at the time of the purchase real intend it a provision for the child no  declaration of his afterward can alter the case and it seem now settle that  the onus to make good rest with the father redington v redington ridgw p c  Murless v franklin Swanst finch v finch Ves post c p but however it be agree  upon all hand that circumstance must govern case of this nature in this case  the defendant be decree to surrender to the plaintiff it be presume upon the  ground that the father have always retain possession even after his daughter  marriage but this be not conclusive evidence grey v grey as in Rep tempt finch  and see infra that the decree be reverse Reg lib b fol this cause be set down  to be reheard on the that of April and on the that of July the decree here  report make on the first hear be reverse by the Lord chancellor who dismiss  the plaintiff bill but without cost