Cited by

Their purpose is to prevent the defendant’s unjust enrichment by recapturing the gains the defendant secured in a transaction.” (footnote omitted)); see also Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 337-38 , 23 N.W.

Again, in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 338 , , this court said: “The rule is also well settled that, after considerable lapse of time, the evidence establishing a parol or an implied trust ought to be very clear and satisfactory.” (Italics supplied.)

“* * * Where the aid of a court of equity is sought to establish a trust * * * by legal construction, the same diligence is required as in other equitable suits.” Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 338 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.

5 Chemedlin v. Prince, 15 Minn. 263 (331); Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 24 (44); Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Shraiberg v. Hanson, 138 Minn. 80 , ; Greenfield v. Olson, 143 Minn. 275 , ; Benjamin v. Savage, 154 Minn. 159 , , 35 A. L. R. 97; Mark v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins.

Restatement, Trusts, § 39: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, an enforceable trust can be created without a writing.” That such is the law in this state appears or is taken for granted in Conrad v. Marcotte, 23 Minn. 55 ; Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Larson v. Lund, supra; Ober v. Brewster, 113 Minn. 388 , ; Cisewski v. Cisewski, 129 Minn. 284 , ; Deposit T. & S. Bank v. Hauert, 153 Minn. 102 , ; In re Estate of Reifsteck, 197 Minn. 315 , .

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 338 , ; Laird v. Vila, 93 Minn. 45, 51 , , 106 A. S. R. 420; Barrett v. Thielen, 140 Minn. 266, 271 , , .

Co. v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 382 ; Krelwitz v. McDonald, 135 Minn. 408 , ; Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 203 , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Bandall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , .

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , .

Co. v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 382 ; Smith v. Lytle, 27 Minn. 184 , ; Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 312 , , 3 L.R.A.

Co. v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 382 ; Smith v. Lytle, 27 Minn. 184 , ; Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 312 , , 3 L.R.A.

* * * It is entirely immaterial, under such circumstances, whether the trustee of the legal title should convey to the mortgagee directly by the arrangement of the parties, or that it should pass to him through the mortgagor.” Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Sons of Temperance v. Brown, 9 Minn. 141 (151); 20 Am.

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Connelly v. Sheridan, 41 Minn. 18 , ; Mercantile Nat.

And see Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn. 430 (462).

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Keith v. Albrecht, 89 Minn. 247 , ; Hook v. Northwest Thresher Co., 91 Minn. 482 , .

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Collom v. Bixby, 33 Minn. 50 , ; Benton v. Schulte, 31 Minn. 312 , .

See, also, Wolford v. Farnham, 44 Minn. 159 , ; Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , .

Chemedlin v. Prince, 15 Minn. 263 , (331;) Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ( 23 N. W. Rep.

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 338 , ( 23 N. W. Rep.

The case is in most respects analogous to Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ( 23 N. W. Rep.

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ( 23 N. W. Rep.

Plaintiff, being vested with the equitable title to the land, had an interest capable of being mortgaged, — Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 ; Sons of Temperance v. Brown, 9 Minn. 144 , (157,) — and if the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee was established between the parties, it continued and was not altered by the acquisition of the legal title from Brayley.