
    Hillsborough, )
    Jan. 6, 1931. )
    Sultana Belis v. Eraklis Belis & a.
    
    
      
      James A. Broderick (by brief and orally) for the plaintiff.
    
      Arthur B. Hayden (by brief and orally), for Olympia Koyiades.
   Snow, J.

It is unnecessary to consider the contention of Koyiades that on the facts alleged no resulting trust could be found to exist as between Sultana and Eraklis (Brooks v. Fowle, 14 N. H. 248, 260; Francestown v. Deering, 41 N. H. 438, 442; Pembroke v. Allenstown, 21 N. H. 107, 111; Moore v. Moore, 38 N. H. 382, 389; Bodwell v. Nutter, 63 N. H. 446, 447; Fessenden v. Taft, 65 N. H. 39, 41; Crowley v. Crowley, 72 N. H. 241, 244-5); for if the existence of a trust as between them were conceded, it was a secret trust as to Koyiades and could not be set up here to defeat her rights as a judgment creditor. Riddle v. George, 58 N. H. 25, 26; Corning v. Records, 69 N. H. 390, 396; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 296, 304. See Kingsbury v. Smith, 13 N. H. 109, 118, 120; Bell v. Twilight, 18 N. H. 159, 166; Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510, 522; Stratton v. Putney, 63 N. H. 577, 579; Watkins v. Arms, 64 N. H. 99, 100.

Bill dismissed as to Koyiades.

All concurred.  