compel a conveyance from the trustee to the cestui que trust, as he has the sole beneficial interest. James v. Atlantic Delaine Co., 3 Cliff., 614. § 446. Property held in trust by a bankrupt passes into the control of the assignee till another trustee is appointed. Carr v. Gale, 3 Woodb. & M., 38. § 447. The visitatorial power is a hereditament founded in property, and valuable in the intendment of law; and where it is invested in trustees, there can be no amotion of them from their corporate capacity, and no interference with the just exercise of their authority, unless it is reserved by the statutes of the foundation or the charter. The trustees are subject to the general superintendency of a court of chancery for any abuse of their trust. Allen v. McKeen, 1 Sumn., 276. IX. CONSTRUCTIVE AND RESULTING TRUSTS. SUMMARY- Furnishing money to purchase land, § 448.— Express trusts; statute of frauds, § 449. § 448. Where a person furnishes money towards the purchase of land to which the title is taken in the name of another, no resulting trust arises unless the amount furnished is some definite proportion of the whole, and is paid for some aliquot part of the property. Such trust must also arise, if at all, when the purchase is made, and cannot be created by liabilities afterwards assumed or subsequent advances. Olcott v. Bynum, §§ 450-453. § 449. In the statutes of North Carolina there is no provision similar to the seventh section of the statute of frauds (29 Car. II., ch. 3), and express trusts "manifested and proved,” as required by that section, are left in that state as at common law. Ibid. [NOTES.-See SS 454-509.] OLCOTT v. BYNUM. (17 Wallace, 44-64. 1872.) ERROR to U. S. Circuit Court, District of North Carolina. STATEMENT OF FACTS.- The object and prayer of the bill in this case are to redeem certain premises therein described, consisting of upwards of fourteen thousand acres of land, sold by the defendants Bynum and Grier to the defendant Sloan, under a mortgage containing a power of sale. The mortgage was executed by the defendant Hovey, and bears date the 1st day of January, 1859. Bynum and Grier, as trustees for the High Shoals Manufacturing Company, were the mortgagees. The mortgage recites that Hovey had executed to Bynum and Grier a penal bond in the sum of $80,000 to secure the payment of $40,000 in three instalments of $13,333.33 each, the first payable on the 1st day of January, 1860, the second on the 1st of July, 1860, and the third on the 1st of January, 1861, all with interest from the 1st of January, 1859. It was conditioned that in default of payment of either of the instalments or the interest thereon, or of any part of either when due, it should be lawful for the mortgagees to sell at public auction all the mortgaged premises, and to make and deliver to the purchaser a deed in fee-simple, and out of the moneys arising from the sale to retain the amount of the principal and interest which should then be due on the bond, together with the costs and charges of advertising and selling, rendering the overplus, if any, to the mortgagor, his heirs or assigns; "which sale so to be made," it was provided, "shall forever be a perpetual bar, both in law and equity, against the mortgagor, his heirs and assigns, and all other persons claiming or to claim the premises, or any part thereof, by, from, or under him, them, or either of them." Default having been made in the payment of the first instalment, due January 1, 1860, the mortgagees advertised the premises to be sold on the ensuing 28th of April, and then sold them for the sum of $43,500 to Sloan, to be held by him in trust for the High Shoals Manufacturing Company, the cestui que trust of the mortgagees. At the time of the sale and conveyance to Hovey a down payment was made consisting of $6,157 in cash, and a receipt to Bynum by Eben S. Stephenson for certain dividends to which Stephenson was entitled, which, added to the cash, made an aggregate of $7,853.33. The bond and mortgage were given to secure the residue of the purchase money. The bill charges that this payment was made by Olcott and Stephenson jointly; that Hovey was a man of no means, and that he bought and took the title as the agent of the complainant and Stephenson, wholly in trust for them, and that on the 8th day of January, 1860, eight days after the title was conveyed to him, he conveyed to them all his interest in the property, and that, on the 18th day of December, 1867, Stephenson conveyed all his interest to the complainant. These allegations, so far as they relate to the agency of Hovey, are clearly proved by the testimony of Hovey himself and of the complainant, and there is nothing in the record which tends in any degree to contradict them. Sufficient evidence was produced in the court below of the execution of the deed from Stephenson to the complainant. The evidence offered as to the deed from Hovey to the complainant and Stephenson consisted of proof of the loss of the original and a certified copy from the proper register's office in North Carolina of a copy which had been registered there. $ 450. The laws of North Carolina do not authorize the registration of a copy of a deed, and a certified copy of a registered copy is not evidence. case. It was held by the court below that this evidence was incompetent to establish the existence of the lost deed, and that the complainant had therefore failed to show any connection with the property in question. Upon the ground of this objection the bill was dismissed. Whether this ruling was correct is an inquiry which meets us at the threshold of our examination of the It is one to be determined by the lex loci rei sita. It is to be considered solely in the light of the statutes and adjudications of North Carolina. This court must hold and administer the law upon the subject as if it were sitting as a local court of that state. In the revised code of 1854 we find the following language. It is a re-enactment of the provision of the act of 1715 on the same subject: "No conveyance for land shall be good and available in law unless the same shall be acknowledged by the grantor, or proved on oath by one or more witnesses in the manner hereinafter directed, and registered in the county where the land shall be, within two years after the date of said deed, and all deeds so executed and registered shall be valid and pass estates in land without livery of seizin, attornment, or other ceremony whatever." Ch. 37, § 1. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of chapter 37, and section 2 of chapter 21, provide for the execution in other states of deeds for lands in North Carolina and their registration in the proper county; but we have found no provision authorizing the registration of a copy. In Patton and Erwin's Lessee v. Reily, 1 Cooke, 125, in the supreme court of Tennessee, an original unregistered deed was offered in evidence. It was objected to upon the ground of the want of registration. The court said: "Registration was intended to stand in the place of livery of seizin. By the common law no estate could pass without livery of seizin, and the same may be said of its substitute. Lands as conveyed by this deed would not pass the estate at common law, and if it will pass, it must be by act of assembly. The act of 1715 required the deed to be regis tered before a legal estate is vested in the grantee. To create a title under this act of assembly, the party claiming the benefit of it must have complied with its requisitions. One of them is that the deed shall be registered. This deed cannot be read in evidence." The plaintiffs were nonsuited. Patton and Erwin's Lessee v. Brown, id., 126, is to the same effect. Such is the settled law of North Carolina upon the subject. Hogan v. Strayhorn, 65 N. C., 279; Ivey v. Granberry, 66 id., 223; Hodges v. Hodges, 2 Dev. & Batt. Eq., 72. The original deed from Hovey to Olcott and Stephenson never having been registered, and the registration of the copy being unauthorized, it follows that the certified copy of the registered copy was a nullity, and could give no legal right to the grantees which the circuit court could recognize. We hold, therefore, that the ruling upon this subject was correct. Obviously, a proceeding in equity had specially for that purpose, and bringing the proper parties before court, is the appropriate remedy for the complainant to establish the lost deed and give it efficacy, and in no other way can this be done. Hodges v. Hodges, supra. It has been insisted, in behalf of the complainant, that there was a resulting trust in favor of the complainant and Stephenson, arising from the circumstances of the transaction at the time of the conveyance to Hovey. § 451. A resulting trust can only arise as to the amount actually paid, and cannot originate in payments made after the purchase. Where the purchase money is all paid by one, and the property is conveyed to another, there is a resulting trust in favor of the party paying, unless there be something which takes the case out of the operation of the general rule. But where he furnishes only a part of the amount paid no trust arises unless his part is some definite portion of the whole, and is paid for some aliquot part of the property, as a fourth, a third, or a moiety. White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige, 241; Sayre v. Townsend, 15 Wend., 650. There must be no uncertainty as to the proportion of the property to which the trust extends. Baker v. Vining, 30 Me., 127. Here the amount paid was $7,853.33, and it was paid without reference to any specific part of the property. Hence the principle in question does not apply. But if it did, it could do so only to the extent of the actual payment. It could certainly have no application in respect to the $40,000 for which Hovey gave his obligation, and for which Olcott and Stephenson assumed no liability to the grantors of the estate. Such a trust must arise, if at all, at the time the purchase is made. The funds must then be advanced and invested. It cannot be created by after-advances or funds subsequently furnished. It does not arise upon subsequent payments under a contract by another to purchase. Buck v. Swazey, 35 Me., 51; Conner v. Lewis, 4 Shep., 274. A trust to the extent of the payment made, if it existed, would not support the case made in the bill. The complainant claims to have owned the entire estate. $452. Statute of frauds. But the bill sets out clearly and fully a case of express trust, and if the seventh section of the statute of frauds applied, the trust would be sufficiently "manifested and proved" by the deposition of Hovey to give it effect. Browne on the Statute of Frauds, 94; Tiffany on Trusts and Trustees, 191; Pinney v. Fellows, 15 Vt., 525; Seaman v. Cook, 14 Ill., 503. But there is no such statutory provision in North Carolina, and the case stands in this aspect as it would at the common law before the enactment of the 29th Car. II., ch. 3. Foy v. Foy, 2 Hayw., 131. This brings us to the examination of the merits of the case. The objections taken by the complainant to the sale to Sloan may be thus stated and grouped together: That the entire property was sold wholly for cash when only a part of the debt was due; that Bynum and Grier bought in the property for themselves; that it was a case of trustees buying for themselves. And that the sale was made in gross disregard of the interests of the complainant in the following particulars: Only enough of the property should have been sold to pay the instalment then due. If the whole were sold it should have been for cash, only to the extent of the amount due, and with credits maturing respectively, so as to meet the instalments of the debt, underdue, at their maturity. The place of sale was improper. The business was conducted by the defendant Bynum. He appears well in the record. No imputation of bad faith has been cast upon him, and no ground for any is disclosed. He conducted himself with integrity and frankness, and mingled kindness with the administration of his trust, as far as his duty to his principals would admit. The first instalment matured on the 1st of January, 1860. He waited until February, trying to get payment without a sale. Meeting with no success, and seeing no prospect of such a result, he advertised the property to be sold in March. Olcott and Stephenson, by their letter of the 25th of February, asked delay until the 1st of May, hoping to be able in the meantime to raise the funds necessary to discharge the amount due. Bynum's absence on the 1st of May being necessary, he gave them until the 28th of April. With this they were content, and asked no further indulgence. Failing to realize their expectations, the property was exposed to sale upon the premises on the appointed day. Bynum procured several capitalists to attend, but none of them would bid more than $35,000, deeming that to be as much as the property was worth. A meeting of the stockholders of the High Shoals Company had been held, and decided not to allow the property to be sold for less than the amount of the debt due on the bond of Hovey, and appointed and instructed Sloan to bid accordingly. He did so bid, and the sale was made to him, as before stated. A deed was not executed until the 12th of June, 1868. It was operative by relation from the time of the sale. But the deed is an immaterial fact. If the sale were valid it is conclusive without the deed. If it were invalid the deed cannot help it. It cannot be doubted that Olcott and Stephenson, when their letter of the 25th of February, 1860, was written, knew the property was to be sold as they had bought it, en masse, and, making no objection, they are concluded upon that point. Lamb v. Goodwin, 10 Ired., 320. The complainant visited North Carolina in the spring of 1861. While there he made no objection to the sale, either to Sloan or Bynum. On the contrary, in conversation with both, he expressly acquiesced and admitted its fairness and validity. He proposed to Sloan to join him in a new purchase of the property. He applied to Bynum for license for a year to himself and Muir, to enable them to search for mines. Bynum gave him one running from April to November, but subject to be revoked at any time upon the sale of the premises. It does not appear that the complainant set up any claim touching the property after the sale until about the time of the filing of this bill, on the 22d of April, 1868. 665 These are significant and important facts in the case. Veazie v. Williams, 3 § 453. If a mortgage or a bond provides that upon the maturity of an instalment without payment the whole debt shall become due, the provision is valid. The place of sale, like the time of advertising, is not prescribed in the mortgage. Both are left to the discretion of the mortgagees. There is no complaint as to the latter. We are satisfied there was no abuse as to the former. The testimony leaves no doubt in our minds that the property would not have brought more if offered elsewhere. Express authority is given to sell all the property upon the failure to pay either of the instalments at maturity. If enough of it to satisfy the amount due could be segregated and sold without injury to the residue, it would have been the duty of the mortgagees so to sell. The evidence convinces us that the sale of a parcel could not have been made without such injury. It was bought by Groot from the High Shoals Manufacturing Company entire. It was sold entire to Hovey under the mortgage of Groot. It was so sold to Sloan under the mortgage of Hovey. Subsequently it was so sold to Bridgers and others, and it was so sold by them to Commodore Wilkes. This shows the views upon the subject of those most conversant with the property and most interested in disposing of it to the best advantage. It has upon it water-power, timber, ores, mills and furnaces; each part is necessary to every other. Dismemberment, instead of increasing, would have lessened the aggregate value. It could not have been sold in parcels without a sacrifice. If a mortgage provide that upon default in the payment when due of a part of the amount secured the whole shall become due and may be collected, such a stipulation is valid and may be enforced. Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 509. So where a bond contains such a stipulation it may be enforced accordingly in an action at law. James v. Thomas, 5 Barn. & Ad., 40. But the bond in this case as recited in the mortgage contained no such stipulation. On the contrary the mortgage, while it authorized a sale of the entire property in the event of any default, expressly provided that if there should be a sale the amount "then due," with costs and charges, should be retained, and the overplus, if any, paid over "unto the party of the first part, his heirs, administrators or assigns." Such a clause has not the effect to make the entire debt due and collectible upon the first default. Holden v. Gilbert, 7 Paige, 208. But the property being incapable of division without injury, and having all been properly sold together, yielded a fund sufficient to pay the whole debt — as well the instalments underdue as the one overdue. Under these circumstances it was proper at once to pay the former as well as the latter, stop the interest, and extinguish the entire liability. The lien of the mortgage continued upon the fund as it subsisted upon the premises before they were sold. Astor v. Miller, 2 Paige, 78; Sweet v. Jacocks, 6 id., 355. If a court of chancery had administered the fund it would have so applied it. Such is the settled rule in equity. Salmon v. Clagett, 3 Bland, Ch., 179; Peyton v. Ayres, 2 Md. Ch., 67; King v. Longworth, 7 Ohio (pt. 2), 232; Campbell v. Macomb, 4 Johns. Ch., 534. Here the mortgagees, having applied the fund as a court of equity would have applied it in conformity to this principle, there is no ground for complaint on the part of Olcott. Where there is a power and discretion, such as existed in this case touching the sale, a court of equity will interpose only on 666 |