Griffith

Plaintiff sued to impress a trust upon real property. The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts and judgment was entered for plaintiff decreeing that he had a 47.4 per cent interest in the real property and in the money deposited in court under a judgment in a prior action, and that he should have an accounting from defendant. A motion for a new trial was made by defendant and denied, but the trial court modified the judgment and awarded plaintiff $17,986.20 and decreed that he had no interest in the real property and was not entitled to an accounting. Both parties have appealed from his judgment and, to avoid confusion, we will hereafter refer to them as plaintiff and defendant.

In this opinion we will consider the points raised- on defendant’s appeal only as our conclusion on that appeal is that the judgment must be reversed, hence plaintiff’s criticisms of the modifications of the judgment are of no moment.

On September 14, 1924, one Marcher, while indebted to a number of individuals, conveyed the real property in suit to McLaughlin and Yermille, as trustees, by deed absolute in form. The property was then subject to a mortgage in favor of Title Insurance & Trust…