HOLLIS VS. HOLLIS. 479

bring the money into court, to be disposed of as justice may re-
quire. If the application of these rents shall accelerate the
payment of the debt due the mortgagees, full authority for such
a course may be found in the case of Burton vs. Smith et al.,
13 Peters, 464.

[No appeal was taken from this order.]

FRANCES HOLLIS
BY HER NEXT FRIEND
vs.
THOS. I. HAYES AND AMOS HOLLIS.

DECEMBER TERM, 1849.

[VACATING CONVEYANCE—RESULTING TRUST—STATUTE OF FRAUDS.]

THB circumstances which will warrant the court in setting aside a conveyance
actually executed, must be much stronger than would be required to induce
it to withhold its aid, if applied to, to compel an execution of a mere agree-
ment to convey.

Inadequacy of price may be so gross and manifest, as to induce the court to set
aside a convcvauuc actually made.

Where the consideration for a conveyance is paid by one, not a party to the
instrument, there is a resulting trust in his favor—a trust implied by law,
from the presumed intention of the parties, and the obvious justice of the
case; which may be proved by parol being excepted from the statute of
frauds.

[The complainant in this case, who was afeme covert, and
sued by her next friend, was, in her own right, seized and
possessed in fee, at the time of her marriage, of a parcel of
land containing about one hundred acres, and worth about
$1700. Sometime after her marriage, she separated from her
husband, who was a man of prodigal and intemperate habits,
and the interest acquired by him in her land, was afterwards
taken in execution for his debts, and sold at constable's sale to
Thomas Hendon. In the year 1836, the complainant induced
the defendant, Hayes, who had married her niece, to purchase
of Hendon the interest sold to him as above mentioned; and