a thesis - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

98 IMPLIED TRUSTS.
behoof of B.," his wife's sister, and the policy provides that B., her
executors, administrators and assigns shall bo entitled to receive the
policy moneys on A.'s death. A. survives B., retains the policy,
and pays the premiums till his death. B.'s representative is a
trustee of the policy moneys for A.'s executor. In re a Policy,
(1902) 1 Ch. 282. < ' •
But the foundation of the doctrine is the desire of courts of
equity to give effect to the intention of the parties, and there is
therefore no resulting trust if it appears to have been the intention
of the purchaser that the transferee should take beneficially.
" It is the established doctrine of a court of equity that this
resulting trust may be rebutted by circumstances in evidence,"
Chief Baron Eyre said in Dyer v. Dyer. And this doctrine was
extended by the case of Foickcs v. Pascoc (1875, L. R. 10 Ch. App.
343), where it was held that in determining whether a trust or a
gift was intended, regard must be had as well to the circumstances
of the case as to the evidence adduced by the party who alleges
that he was intended to take beneficially.
Further, the fact that the purchase is made by a father in the
name of a child, by a husband in the name of a wife, or by any
person in the name of another to whom he is in loco parent is, is
prima facie evidence of intention to make a gift. Here, according
to Sir G-eorge Jessel, " the presumption of gift arises from the
moral obligation to give" (10 Ch. D. 477). This presumption of
advancement, as it is called, has been applied in the following
cases:—
Illustrations.
1. A. takes bonds in the names of his infant grandchildren,
whose father is dead. This is a provision for them, and there is
no presumption of a resulting trust. Ebrand v. Dancer (1680),
2 Ch. Ca. 26.
2. A. purchases property and takes the conveyance to himself
and his wife and X. during their lives and the life of the survivor.
After A.'s death his wife is not a trustee for A.'s estate. Kingdon
v. Bridges (1688), 2 Vern. 67.
3. A. purchases property in the name of his illegitimate son, to
whom he is in loco parentis. This is presumed to be a gift. BecJcford
v. Bedford (1774), Lofffc. 490.