case Lamplugh versus Lamplugh follow Crabb v Crabb my king Cf on point of  advancement wh t l c that edn and fox v fox ir Chan Rep Eq can ab pl father  buy a estate in the name of his young son and of a trustee it shall be take as  a advancement so though a reversion be settle on the young son expectant on  the mother death one have two son by several venture upon the young of which a  estate be settle expectant upon his mother death and the father purchase a  estate part freehold of inheritance and the other part a lease for a term of  year of which land he himself have the inheritance and buy these land the  freehold in the name of the young son and the father nephew and the leasehold  in the name of the young son and the father mother but in the conveyance the  whole purchasemoney be mention to be pay by the father after this the father  take the profit during his life and die leave the young son about the age of  eight year the old son bring his bill against the young son and the respective  trustee insist that the money be mention in the deed to have be pay by the  father this make peer William the defendant trustee for the father and  consequent for the plaintiff but the trustee disclaim any interest in the  estate it be decree by the Lord chancellor saint that the young son be a son  unprovide for notwithstanding this reversion which he be entitle unto after  his mother death for the mother may survive the father many year and in that  time the young son may starve if he be to have no other provision dly that if  the purchase have be make in the young son name only this have be plain a  advancement of the young son and no trust and the present case do not differ  in regard the person name with he do disclaim and especial since prudential  reason may be give why these person be join videlicet that they may help and  protect the infant young son also to prevent the estate be descend to a remote  relation in case the young son by the second venture shall have die before his  father for in such case a court of equity may have say if the father be to  come for the estate that though this will have be a advancement in case the  young son have live to have enjoy it yet the young son die the trustee shall  in equity have convey it back to the father and this may be the use and  intention of name these trustee beside the young son be eight year old be  unfit to be a trustee and therefore must be intend to have be name for his own  benefit dly it be also rule that the statute of fraud and perjury which say  that all conveyance where trust and confidence shall arise or result by  implication of law shall be as if that act have never be sect must relate to  trust peer William and equitable interest and can relate to a use which be a  legal estate last that parole evidence shall be admit to show the intention of  the father that this conveyance be for the benefit and advancement of the  young son because it concur with the conveyance and be only to rebut a pretend  result trust and as to the father take the profit during his life that can be  no evidence of a trust for he for it must be intend to have be do by he as  guardian to the son vide post Lloyd v read and Stileman v ashdown atk rider v  Kidder Ves and the old son bill be dismiss with cost so Lord grey v lady grey  finch and Charles can S c Elliot v Elliot Charles can mumma v mumma vern  tailor v tailor f atk Stileman v ashdown atk so by grandfather in grandson  name father be dead ebrand v dancer Charles can so notwithstanding the father  peer William er p make a subsequentdeclaration of trust for himself Elliot v  Elliot so if purchase make in joint name of father and son Scroop v Scroop  Charles can back v Andrews for but this be a weak case than the former pole v  pole I ves and the son shall not have the benefit of survivorship as against a  judgement creditor of the father Stileman v ashdown atk the like argument hold  against a result trust of a residue in a infant executor vide the conclusion  of Lord hardwicke judgement in Blinkhorne v Feast ves vide the next case vide  also Ulrich v Litchfield atk petit v smith ante and more particular Rachfield  v careless post Vol two a purchase of a copyhold by a father in the joint name  of himself and his son be to be presume a advancement even though there be a  custom in the manor to grant copyhold for several life and that the grantee  shall take successive unless it be show by evidence contemporaneous with the  purchase that the son be intend to be a trustee dyer v dyer Cox Watk cop S c  and see Rumboll v Rumboll Eden Glaister v hewer Ves finch v finch Ves Murless  v franklin swan swift v Davis east f n Prankerd v Prankerd si stuff peer  William de term S HILLARII