11

Fester by the fact that the purchase of the land was unjustly
made by F and himself jointly.

I do not think his rights are materialy affected by that
circumstance. I do not think they would have been, had he
actually paid on Monday or even the whole of the purchase - money instead of only giving his land to pay
1/7th. Had the parties been strangers, and H, having advanced the money, the conveyance had been made to F, then would have been
an an implied fine in favour of H; but the purchase having been made
as I understand for the life, H: contribution, whether nominal or actual
being for that object, the implication of a trust is respected, and
so far as Hi contribution goes, it constitutes F a trustee for L. Where a purchase
is made by a husband in the name of his wife, or of a child, the
presumption is that it is intended as an advanccement under the
contrary t established in evidence. Kingdom & Bridges 2 Vers 68; Back [unclear], 2
vern v Hutchinson, 1 Dean. 50 [unclear] ' 40. J Coll. 67: [unclear] 10
Ves. 360, & note (a) (where there is a vast array of authorities); 4 [unclear]
10 ves. 367th (1); Sidmouth v Sidmouth, 2 Reav. 454: Skeat v Skeats, 2.40
Coll. 9: 1 hom. Dig. 244 to 246: 2 Str Sp. 1203,1204.

(2). Whether by the law of Alabama, it is clothed with a sepearate state
and if not how H: marital rights are then affected?
In Virginia, I think this would be as [unclear] doubt that it
would be [unclear] that th took a seperate estate sl possibly there may be a greater fit, th doctrine there appearing to be more [unclear] than
in most of the States, or in England, although professed founded
upon the exporation of the English Courts.
I cite at second hand, but I believe I attend a [uncleaer], 15th
169 Hawkins Coaster. 2 Port. 460: Rainey & Rainey 35 Al 282: Atlas
v White, 16th Al: 181, Hale v Stone, 14 Ala 803: Inge v Forrester, 6 Al a 418, 421;
Mitchell v yates 23 Ala 438, 446 & would tend to throw doubt upon