482 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

whether the conveyance to the defendant Hayes, would be
avoided upon the ground of inadequacy of price, as it seems to
me, that there are other grounds upon which the relief sought
by the bill might be granted, if the case was in a condition for
a final decree.

The bill alleges, and the evidence shows, that the considera-
tion for the conveyance was paid by the complainant, or bor-
rowed upon the credit of her title, and, therefore, that there is
a resulting trust in her favor, a trust implied by law, from the
presumed intention of the parties, and the obvious justice of
the case, and if such is the r.ase, the statute of frauds relied
upon in the answer, is no defence, these trusts being excepted
from its operation. 4 Kent's Corn., 305; Dorsey vs. Clarke,
4:11. &J, 561, 556.

That such trusts do result, and that parol evidence is admis-
sible to establish the facts upon which they arise, not only
against the deed, but in opposition to the answer, has been
shown by Chancellor Kent upon a careful review of the cases.
Boyd vs. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep., 582.

The inclination of my mind, therefore, is, that there is a re-
sulting trust in this case in favor of the complainant, and I
might proceed at, once to pass such a decree, but it seems to
me to be proper before any final decision is made, that the
mortgagee who advanced the money with which Hendon was
paid, should be before the court, as it does not very clearly ap-
pear what effect such a decision may have upon the mortgage.

That mortgage was executed by Hayes, as the absolute
owner of the property, and a decree pronouncing him to be
only the trustee of the complainant, or vacating the convey-
ance to him, and appointing a new trustee, might so affect the
validity or operation of the mortgage, as to require the pres-
ence of the mortgagee as a party to the bill. This is a ques-
tion which is certainly not meant to be decided now, nor any
intimation even given of the impression which may have been
made upon the mind of the court; all that is intended at this
time to be said is, that it is thought advisable that the mort-
gagee should be brought in as a party; and the case will be