Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/191

 184 FEDERAL REPORTER. �time of the purchase, which, however, was never done until November 6, 1877, as already stated. The wife says that when the deed was made to her she paid him f :^0 in money that she had made herself since her marriage. A mortgage had been made on the hopse and lot for $1,000, whioh had beenborrowed by the husband for the purpose of building the house. They both executed the mortgage. She says for years she had insisted that the property shonld be placed in her own name before it was done, but that he had put it off from time to time. She says, also, she did not Icnow, at the time, that the deed was made to him, although, of course, she must have ascertained the fact shortly afterwards. The husband had never paid her the $600, or any interest on it. �These two cases were argued as one, and, as they relate to the property of two partners engaged together in trade, who became bankrupts, and, as the faets are somewhat similar, and the same principles are involved in each case, they will be considered together. �Several cases have been citedbythe appellant's counsel in support of the deeds inade to the wife, but they do not seem to go to the fuU extent necessary in these cases. In Parton v. Yates, 41 Ind. 456, the supreme court of this state sustained a deed made by the husband to the wife, where the property had been conveyed to the husband, and the whole considera- tion paid theref or belonged to the wife ; but the court, in that case, laid stress on the fact that no money or property of the husband had become united with the real estate which was the subject of controversy. It is true, there being a balance due as part of the purchase money, the husband had given a note for it, and he and his wife had executed a mortgage on the premises to secure its payment, but it was entirely un- paid, which the court considered an important fact in the case. Summers v. Hoover, 42 Ind. 153, was a case where the real estate was( conveyed to the husband, but the considera- tion proceeded solely from the wife, and the deed was made to the husband without the wife's consent, and the court inti- mated, in such a case, the deed to the wife would be vrlid; but it Was clearly; à.s in the other case, on the ground Ihat ����