1. Where the mother paid the purchase price and title to the land was taken in the name of the daughter, the transaction can be upheld only as a gift to the daughter, if title is to be confirmed in her.
2. Though the mother placed great trust and confidence in her daughter, her mind was not subordinate to her daughter's. Under the facts of this case, she was not led into making a gift which she did not actually intend to make; she did not impoverish herself by making the gift; there is no evidence as to whether she had independent advice or not; there was no secrecy about the transaction. Held, that there was a gift of the land to the daughter.
3. While this court is always ready to establish a trust or avoid an inequitable transaction when the facts are clearly proved, it should not upset title to land which has been vested for ten years, when death or other circumstances prevent a clear showing of the facts and when a decree would necessarily be based in large part on surmise.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, BROGAN, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, DEAR, WELLS, KERNEY, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.