Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/458

 446 FEDERAL REPORTKB. �prôperty. But it was different with regard to the $290 re- ceived by him from her mother's estate; no such separate quality was imparted to it, and it became the prôperty of the husband. As to the sum of $300 received from her brothers in 1862, and that of $495 received from them in 1864, by the law of Ohio it was the separate prôperty of the wife, and the husband had no title to it. As to the sum of $44 in 1877, and that of $45 in 1878, the only proof of the payment of these is by the wife that she paid it to him, and by him that he received it from her. I think, under the law of Ohio, this evidence will have to be excluded, which, as to these items, leaves them without proof. �Let us now go back to the question of the rights of the wife growing out of the investment of the $1,000 in building and furnishing the house. The title to the land upon which it was built was in the husband's name. Did the payment of this sum for this purpose create a resulting trust in her favor to the extent of the money paid. To raise such a trust where the purchase money is paid by one and the title taken by another, the entire purchase money must bave been paid by such party; or if a part only be paid such part must be pàid for Bome aliquot part of the prôperty, as a fourth, a third, or a moiety, and there must be no uncertainty as to the propor- tion of the prôperty to which the trust extends. Olcott v. Bynum, 17 Wall. 44. And, again, such a trust must arise at the time of the purchase ; it cannot arise by after advances. Id. �The facts in this case do not bring it within any of these requirements. It cannot, therefore, be said that this payment created in the wife a resulting trust in the title of any spe- cifie part of this land, by which the conveyance to the wife can be upheld. �Can the conveyances be npheld as the execution of an agreement for a conveyance by the husband to the wife, as the consideration of the money received? Conveyances of real estate, in pursuance and execution of a prier agreement, have been upheld in bankruptcy, but it bas only been whera the terms of the agreement have been specifie and definite, and clearly establishedby competent evidence. Kesner v. ����