atkins case hutchins v lee march the that bill bring to set aside a assignment  of a leasehold estate c upon suggestion that it be not intend as a absolute  assignment but subject to a trust for the plaintiff benefit though no express  trust in the deed yet as it may be collect from circumstance arise out of the  assignment itself inconsistent with a absolute disposition Lord chancellor  admit parole evidence to explain this transaction though there can be no  parole declaration of a trust since the car yet parole evidence proper in  avoidance of fraud bill bring to set aside a assignment of a leasehold estate  and all other the estate and effect of the plaintiff upon a suggestion that  the same be never intend as a absolute assignment for the benefit of the  defendant but make only to ease the plaintiff of the trouble and care of  manage his own concern at that time be then under great infirmity of body and  mind and subject to a trust for the benefit of the plaintiff if he shall  afterward be in a capacity of take care of his own affair No trust of any kind  appear on the face of the assignment but upon the whole circumstance of the  case videlicet the annuity reserve to the plaintiff be by no mean equivalent  to the estate so dispose of the recital in the deed of assignment that the  plaintiff be under a disability at that time of take care of his own affair  all the effect in general be assign as well as the leasehold estate and after  a general covenant in the deed from the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff  against any breach of covenant in the original lease and a special reservation  to the plaintiff of all the timber c and he to set out and allow timber for  the repair of the estate these covenant do not appear in the register book a  circumstance principal atkins rely on by Lord chancellor as not at all  reconcileable with a absolute disposition of the whole interest to the  defendant and other circumstance raise a strong presumption of a trust intend  Lord chancellor admit parole evidence to explain this transaction videlicet  declaration by the defendant at the time the deed of assignment be execute and  afterward amount to a acknowledgement of such a trust as the plaintiff now  insist on and his lordship say such evidence be consistent with the deed as  there be all the appearance of a intend trust upon the face of it but however  though there can atkins er p be no parole declaration of a trust since the  statute of the car yet this evidence be proper in avoidance of fraud which be  here intend to be put on the plaintiff for the defendant design be absolute to  deprive the plaintiff of all the benefit of his estate decree that the  defendant shall reconvey the estate to the plaintiff req lib a fol see thynn v  thynn vern Oldham v Litchfield vern Willis v Willis post vol