Facts
- The dispute arose after a father paid the purchase price for a parcel of land but arranged for title to be conveyed into the name of his minor son.
- No written declaration of trust or deed of gift accompanied the conveyance.
- Some years later a conflict emerged as to who, in equity, was the true beneficial owner: the father who provided the consideration, or the son whose name appeared on the legal title.
- The cause was heard in the Court of Exchequer before Eyre CB.
- Both parties accepted that the legal title stood in the son’s name; the disagreement concerned whether the beneficial interest followed the legal estate (gift) or whether equity intervened to impose a trust in favor of the father.
Issues
- Does equity presume that a person who supplies the entire purchase money retains the beneficial interest when the conveyance is taken in another’s name?
- If such a presumption arises between parent and child, can it be displaced by evidence – direct or circumstantial – that the transferor intended an outright gift?
Decision
- Eyre CB held that a “resulting trust” arises where one person pays for property and another takes the legal title, unless clear evidence shows that the purchase money was meant as a gift.
- The court emphasized that equity regards the payment of the purchase price as the decisive act. Legal title, though relevant, is not conclusive of beneficial ownership.
- Accordingly, the son held the land on trust for the father. There being no documentation or conduct evidencing a donative intention, the presumption favoring the father was not rebutted.
- In reaching this conclusion the court placed the burden of proof squarely on the alleged donee: once the father established that he provided the consideration, the son had to prove the existence of a gift and failed to do so.
Legal Principles
-
Resulting Trust Presumption
- Whenever property is transferred without consideration, equity presumes a trust for the person who supplied the purchase money, on the rationale that it is unfair for a volunteer to profit at another’s expense without clear intention to benefit him.
- The principle applies irrespective of familial ties; it is a general rule grounded in contribution to price.
-
Interaction with Presumption of Advancement
- Later authorities developed a separate presumption that transfers from father to child (and husband to wife) are intended as gifts. Dyer v Dyer precedes that strand of doctrine and shows that, at least in 1788, equity did not automatically infer bounty from the parental relationship.
- Modern courts treat the resulting trust and advancement presumptions as competing defaults. Dyer remains the classic example of the resulting trust operating in a family setting when evidence of a gift is lacking.
-
Burden and Standard of Proof
- The transferee must produce “manifest and convincing” evidence of an intention to benefit him—such as a contemporaneous deed, unequivocal statements, or subsequent conduct consistent only with a gift.
- Mere familial affection or the fact of the relationship is insufficient to displace the equitable presumption created by payment of the price.
-
Continuing Authority
- Dyer v Dyer is regularly cited in England, Australia, Canada, and other common-law jurisdictions for the basic formulation of resulting trust doctrine.
- Statutory reforms, for example in matrimonial property legislation, sometimes override these presumptions, but absent statutory modification, the equitable rules described in Dyer continue to apply.
Conclusion
By confirming that payment of purchase money, rather than bare legal title, determines equitable ownership unless a clear intention to give is shown, Dyer v Dyer laid down a durable rule of private law. It remains a leading authority on the allocation of the burden of proof and on the operation of resulting trusts within family transactions, reminding parties that careful evidence is essential when an outright gift is truly intended.
