French v. Pearson A.

It is admitted that the plaintiff had a written con-

tract with the Pitmans for the purchase of the lot. This gave the plaintiff an equitable interest in the lot. Gove v. Lawrence, 26 N. H. 484, 492; Page v. Page, 8 N. H. 187, 198. Plaintiff claims the deed was merely security for the loan, or advancement, both terms being used interchangeably by both parties, and this claim must be sustained. Page v. Page, supra. Defendants’ agreement to pay the money for the plaintiff, taking the title in their names, and then agreeing to convey the land to him when they were repaid, results in a trust in…