1. The payment of money, part of the principal of a married woman's separate estate, to her husband, raises no presumption that she intends to give him the money. The inference is that there was a loan or a deposit for safekeeping.
2. The defendant has not sustained the burden of proof of donative intent on the part of the respondent wife in connection with the two bank accounts here in question which were transferred from their both names to his sole name.
3. The proofs abundantly show that the engagement and wedding rings in this case belong to the respondent wife, as did the proceeds of the sale thereof. She is entitled to a return of the proceeds from her husband.
PER CURIAM.
The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the Court of Chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, WELLS, RAFFERTY, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN, JJ. 13.
For modification — COLIE, McGEEHAN, JJ. 2.