The complaint is sufficient in its statement of facts to constitute a cause of action.

*398 The court rendered the following decision:—

As conclusions of law the court finds:—

The findings show that the defendant received the land conveyed to him for plaintiff and himself for services rendered by them as attorneys. (Finding V.)

This finding, there being nothing in the facts found showing the contrary, plainly indicates that the land was acquired and *402 held by Haley for the joint benefit of plaintiff and himself. This is in accordance with the averments of the complaint, and the law directs such a construction of the finding: The first conclusion of law so determines the legal rights of the parties.

The defendant’s contention that there is no joinder of interests of plaintiff and himself is unsustainable under the facts found. The allegations of the complaint set forth a joint interest, and the facts found establish it.

The defendant having received the conveyance for plaintiff and himself, he is bound in good conscience to transfer to plaintiff his interest. A court of equity will fasten this obligation upon the conscience of defendant, make him a trustee for this purpose, and compel him to do what he should do, that is, convey to plaintiff what he is entitled to have. This land here was purchased by professional services rendered by plaintiff and defendant under a contract made with them; the conveyance having been made to the defendant under these circumstances, a trust results to the plaintiff by operation of law. (Shoemaker v. Smith, 11 Humph. 81 ; Civ. Code, §§ 1572, 1573.)

It is no answer to this, that Haley having acted without authority in procuring the conveyance as far as regards plaintiff’s interest, that plaintiff has still recourse to the parties with whom the contract was made. He has also recourse against defendant. He can elect to proceed against either.

If any issues are not found upon, such issues are immaterial, in view of the facts found. The facts found sustain the judgment, and there was and is no necessity to go further and find on other issues.

There is no contradiction in the findings, and we find nothing to sustain the contention that the defendant is entitled to a judgment upon the pleadings and findings, or upon either pleadings or findings.

Judgment affirmed.

Sharpstein, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.