
    Shepherd v. White. (Note 12.)
    Where the purchase-money is paid by the father, and the title its taken in tho name of the son, it is presumed to be an advancement; but this presumption may be explained and rebutted by proof. Any written acknowledgment of tho son that it was not so designed will rebut the presumption, wlioro the controversy is between heirs.
    Error from. Montgomery. Títere was but one question in this case to be considered. Ought the will of the younger Slieplicrd to have been received in evidence in support of the right of those claiming under the will of his father?
    The suit was brought by the widow and heirs of the jumuger Shepherd against the widow and representatives of the father to recover a tract of land. In defense, the will of the younger Shepherd was offered in evidence, containing a clause in which lie acknowledged that the money for the laud in question was paid by his father, and that the remaining payment due on the land was to be paid by him, and that he was to have tho land. The title to the laud was in the name of the younger’Shepherd. This evidence ivas ruled out by the court, and the defendants excepted. There ivas a verdict for tho plaintiffs, and the defendants brought the case into this court by a writ of error.
    
      
      Yoakum §■ Campbell, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      JSF. IT. Davis, for defendants in error.
   LIPSCOMB, .T.

We are not advised upon wliat ground the judge r'ulecl out the evidence offered. It is presumed, however, that it was that, between the father and (lie son, (he mere fact of the land being paid for by tho father would not raise a resulting trust. This, in the abstract, is true, because the payment of the money by tiie father will bo presumed to be a voluntary advancement; but this presumption may be explained and rebutted by proof that such payment was not intended as an advancement. Any written acknowledgment of tiie son that it was not so designed will rebut tiie presumption and let in the resulting trust. Tiie will of tiie son was an express declaration of tiie trust, and was conclusive that it was not intended as an advancement. For this error in excluding tho will tiie judgment is reversed and the causo remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Note 12. — Samo case, 11 T., 146; 16 T., 163.  