▁I ▁had ▁better ▁look ▁out ▁for ▁another ▁job ▁now : ▁rather ▁than ▁stay ▁here ▁where ▁I ▁have ▁no ▁security .” ▁ ▁So , ▁instead ▁of ▁looking ▁for ▁another ▁job , ▁she ▁stayed ▁on ▁in ▁the ▁house ▁looking ▁after ▁Kenneth ▁and ▁Clar ice . ▁There ▁is ▁a ▁pres umption ▁that ▁she ▁did ▁so , ▁re lying ▁on ▁the ▁ass ur ances ▁given ▁to ▁her ▁by ▁Kenneth ▁and ▁Hed ley . ▁The ▁bur den ▁is ▁not ▁on ▁her , ▁but ▁on ▁them , ▁to ▁prove ▁that ▁she ▁did ▁not ▁rely ▁on ▁their ▁ass ur ances . ▁They ▁did ▁not ▁prove ▁it , ▁nor ▁did ▁their ▁represent atives . ▁So ▁she ▁is ▁pres umed ▁to ▁have ▁re lied ▁on ▁them . ▁So ▁on ▁the ▁bur den ▁of ▁proof ▁it ▁seems ▁to ▁me ▁that ▁the ▁judge ▁was ▁in ▁error . ▁ ▁The ▁second ▁point ▁is ▁about ▁the ▁need ▁for ▁some ▁exp end iture ▁of ▁money ▁— ▁some ▁det r iment ▁— ▁before ▁a ▁person ▁can ▁ac quire ▁any ▁interest ▁in ▁a ▁house ▁or ▁any ▁right ▁to ▁stay ▁in ▁it ▁as ▁long ▁as ▁he ▁wishes . ▁It ▁so ▁happens ▁that ▁in ▁many ▁of ▁these ▁cases ▁of ▁propriet ary ▁est opp el ▁there ▁has ▁been ▁exp end iture ▁of ▁money . ▁But ▁that ▁is ▁not ▁a ▁necessary ▁element . ▁I ▁see ▁that ▁in ▁S nell ' s ▁Princi ples ▁of ▁Equ ity , ▁ 2 7 th ▁ed . ▁( 1 9 7 3 ), ▁p . ▁ 5 6 5 , ▁it ▁is ▁said : ▁“ A ▁must