43(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where land is paid for by one, though title is taken in the name of another, an express agreement by holder of title to hold in trust for the real purchaser may be

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

155.

established by parol.-Higginbotham v. Boggs, | grantee for the purpose of defeating a judgment creditor, and so no resulting trust arose.-Higginbotham v. Boggs, 155.

(B) Resulting Trusts.

TUGS.

72 (U.S.C.C.A.) When one person pays for land and has title made to another, a trust results in favor of the purchaser.-Higginbotham See Collision, 61–72, 90, 95, 102. v. Boggs, 155.

A resulting trust, if it arises at all, must arise at the time the legal title is taken in the name

of one who does not pay a consideration for See Carriers, 37.

the conveyance.-Id.

81(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In determining whether a resulting trust arises where one purchasing land

TWENTY-EIGHT HOUR LAW.

ULTRA VIRES.

has title taken in the name of another, the close See Corporations, 456-479.
relationship of the grantee to the purchaser and
the purchaser's moral obligation to support may
be considered.-Higginbotham v. Boggs, 155.

86 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a husband or father, See Bonds.

on purchasing land, takes title in the name of his wife or his child, no presumption of resulting trust arises as in case of strangers or rela

UNDERTAKINGS.

UNFAIR COMPETITION.

tives under no obligation to support.-Higgin- See Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, 100. botham v. Boggs, 155.

UNIFORM WAREHOUSE ACT.

The presumption of a resulting trust may be rebutted by evidence of the circumstances or See Factors, 19; Warehousemen. declarations by the real purchaser, who took title in the name of another, that a gift was intended to the grantee.-Id.

88 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where land is paid for by one, though title is taken in the name of anoth er, payment, raising a resulting trust, may be established by parol.-Higginbotham v. Boggs, 155.

89(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In suit to establish a resulting trust in land, title to which was transferred from the original grantee to purchaser's sister, evidence held to establish that, though purchaser was the equitable owner, he intended his sister to take the fee of the land.-Higgin

botham v. Boggs, 155.

89(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Parol evidence, to establish a resulting trust, must be clear, unquestionable, and certain.-Higginbotham v. Boggs, 155.

VII. ESTABLISHMENT AND EN-
FORCEMENT OF TRUST.

(C) Actions.

UNITED STATES.

See Conspiracy, 33; Courts, 263-493;
Criminal Law, 113; Customs Duties;
Indians; Judgment, 760; Limitation of
Actions, 11; Post Office; Public Lands.

V. ACTIONS.

133 (U.S.C.C.A.) Judgments in favor of the United States held not barred by laches of officers of the United States.-United States v. Minor, 595.

UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND

SEIZURES.

See Searches and Seizures.

UNSEAWORTHINESS.

See Shipping, 121.

USAGES.

362 (U.S.C.C.A.) A resulting trust will not be declared in favor of a purchaser, who had the legal title made to another for the purpose of defrauding his creditors.-Higginbotham v. Boggs, See Customs and Usages.

155.

Where purchaser of land took title in name of another for purpose of defeating collection of

USE AND OCCUPATION.

judgment against him held by state, a subsequent See Election of Remedies, 15.
release of judgment will not give rise to result-
ing trust.-Id.

365(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where for over 22 years

VACATION.

a purchaser of land acquiesced in the title re- See New Trial, 165.
maining in his sister, to whom it was transferred
from the original grantee, and his will affirmed
such title, the heirs of the purchaser cannot
thereafter assert a resulting trust in the land.
Higginbotham v. Boggs, 155.

372(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) In a suit to establish a resulting trust in land, evidence held to show

that the purchaser who paid the consideration See Execution, 291; Judgment, 682;

had title taken in the name of an ostensible

Sales.

VENUE.

See Criminal Law, 113.

VESSELS.

See Admiralty, 8.

WAIVER.

See Appeal and Error, 1078; Bankruptcy, 293; Courts, 325; Estoppel; Indictment and Information, 196.

WAREHOUSEMEN.

See Factors, 52.

2 (U.S.C.C.A.) The Uniform Warehousing Act of Tennessee, intended to cover the subject of the respective rights of holders of warehouse receipts and creditors of the depositors, has superseded all existing common or statutory law on the subject.-Interstate Banking & Trust Co. v. Brown, 526.

158(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Defendant who made oral contract giving plaintiff's predecessor title right to use overflow waters in consideration of his permitting overflow on his land, could not, after 40 years of such use and expenditure of money in development of orchards, etc., cut off water during irrigating season without becoming liable for consequent damages.-Bright v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co., 437.

1582(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Complaint in action for breach of oral executed irrigation contract and damages for consequent injuries to crops, held good as against demurrer.-Bright v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co., 437. WHARVES.

The Uniform Warehousing Act of Tennessee, 20(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) The lessee and manager recognizing the power of the depositor of goods in warehouse to pledge warehouse receipt so as to give a better title than he had and to disregard those rights which under the state's policy would otherwise accrue to the execution creditor, will be strictly construed.-Id.

12 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Uniform Warehousing Act Tenn. § 2, warehouse receipt for cotton held insufficient to come within the act as failing to describe the cotton for purpose of identification.-Interstate Banking & Trust Co. v. Brown, 526.

of a wharf, who directed the placing of a scow
alongside while waiting for a discharging berth,
held solely liable for her injury by settling on
a lump on the bottom with the falling tide;
none of those connected with her navigation
having knowledge of the obstruction.-C. F.
Harms Co. v. Upper Hudson Stone Co., 457,
859.
WITNESSES.

See Appeal and Error, 994, 1048; Evidence.

Uniform Warehousing Act Tenn. § 5, does not convert into a valid statutory negotiable receipt a paper which is not a statutory receipt | (C) at all, but sections 4 and 5 must be read in connection with section 2, cl. (d).—Id.

The rule that warehouse receipts are valid and enforceable both at their inception and thereafter, because intended to cover property which could always be identified, cannot extend to a case where no separate receipt covers all the property, but where the result is reached only by the aggregate of many independent receipts.-Id.

15(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) General creditors of a firm of cotton factors not parties to the arrangement and without knowledge, which stored cotton in a warehouse taking blanket receipts and pledging them to secure loans by banks, were not bound by estoppel by the pledges of the receipts. Interstate Banking & Trust Co. v. Brown, 526.

II. COMPETENCY.

Testimony of Parties or Persons Interested, for or against Representatives, Survivors, or Successors in Title or Interest of Persons Deceased or Incompetent.

140(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Gen. Code Ohio, § 11495, neither the maker of a note nor indorsers will be deemed parties adverse to representatives of a deceased indorser, in action by holder.-Murray v. Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis, 247.

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.

248(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) The answer to a question as to appearance, "She was screaming with pain in her side," held, in the absence of specific objection of irresponsiveness, to mean that her screams appeared to witness to be caused by pain in the side.-Chicago Rys. Co. v. Kramer, 147. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, CONTRADICTION, AND COR

ROBORATION.

20 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Uniform Warehousing Act Tenn. § 23, where cotton warehousemen in the city had long been in the habit of issuing receipts which banks of the city and adjacent cotton country had been in the habit of treating such receipts as good for loans of $50 per bale, all of the bales of cotton in a warehouse of varying values did not become pro tanto fungible 317(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where part of the tesgoods, so that holders of the warehouse receipts timony of a witness was obviously false and became tenants in common of the entire mass.- evasive, the whole testimony, being uncorroboratInterstate Banking & Trust Co. v. Brown, 526.ed, may be disregarded.-Parker v. Ross, 191.

(A) In General.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. | "Indirect heating system."-Pelton v. Williams, 380(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) One calling a witness cannot impeach him by proof of previous contradictory declarations, though he may call such declarations to the mind of the witness in case of surprise, for the purpose of inducing him to correct his testimony.-Murray v. Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis, 247.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS, ST. PAUL, MINN.