1. Where husband and wife take title to land in both their names, a tenancy by the entirety is created, and the question whether the property was bought with joint funds or no becomes immaterial since the question of the source of the fund with which the land was bought applies only to cases where the original conveyance was made to some person other than the one who paid the purchase price.
2. The husband conveyed his interest in the tenancy by the entirety to his wife only on her insistence and because of her fear of the consequences of a trip he contemplated. The wife orally promised to reconvey the property upon his return from the trip. Held, the agreement is effectual in equity to raise a trust, even though it be parol, since a court of equity in a transaction involving a confidential relationship such as exists between husband and wife, does not consider itself bound by the parol evidence rule, but rather will hold that if a husband grants all his property to his wife by deed the deed will be held inoperative in equity, for it can in no just sense be deemed a reasonable provision for the wife.
3. Where a husband conveys all of his interest in property held by the entirety to his wife, on a parol promise by her to reconvey, the wife has the burden of proving that the conveyance was intended as a gift. Held, that the wife reconvey to the husband his original interest in the property and account to him.
4. Since the status of neither party has changed since the delivery of the deed, so as to evolve a condition of injustice, complainant will not be held to have been guilty of laches.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Advisory Master Minturn in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.