1. Complainant, through its president, made a loan to the defendant on defendant's representation that he needed the money to help pay part of the consideration of the purchase of a farm. No representation was made that the defendant would take the deed in his name alone or that he would give any security in the form of a mortgage, either at the time of the passing of title or later. Held, that the complainant made the loan on the basis of defendant's financial standing only, and having allowed five years to pass since the making of the loan, and having been present at the time of the conveyance so as to have notice that the title was taken in the name of the defendant and his wife, cannot now ask that the conveyance to the defendant and his wife be deemed in fraud of creditors; that the wife be decreed to hold title to the farm for the benefit of her husband, and that the land be decreed to be subject to the lien of complainant's judgment obtained on the basis of the note given for the loan.
2. In order for there to be fraud in a case of this kind, there must be acts, omissions and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty; or there must be truth or confidence justly reposed and injurious to another, or by which an undue or unconscientious advantage is taken of another. Howard v. West Jersey and Seashore Railroad Co., 102 N.J. Eq. 517.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Davis 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.