CHAPMAN, Justice.
The question presented on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the existence of a resulting trust. The property involved is the ownership of a 1950 Model Cadillac Sedan automobile. The testimony of the parties centered about the question of whether the Cadillac was owned by the Frank Pringle estate or by C.V. Pringle, plaintiff-appellant. The Special Master heard all the testimony adduced by the parties and recommended that a decree be entered in effect holding that the Cadillac automobile was the property of the Frank Pringle estate. A decree was entered by the Chancellor according to the recommendation of the Special Master, and the plaintiff appealed.
We have held that when a resulting trust is sought to be established by parol evidence, the burden rests upon the person asserting the existence of the trust to remove every reasonable doubt as to its existence by clear, strong and unequivocal evidence. See Loftin v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565, 2 So. 837; Benbow v. Benbow, 117 Fla. 37, 157 So. 512; Flanagan v. Herrett, 130 Fla. 531, 178 So. 147, and similar cases.
We have reviewed the testimony, heard oral argument at the bar of this Court, examined the briefs and reached the conclusion, reluctantly, that the decree appealed from should not be disturbed.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.