1. Complainant is entitled to have the two deeds conveying his home to his now deceased wife set aside and the home returned to him. There is definite, reliable and convincing testimony that complainant conveyed the property to his wife with the understanding that it would be returned to him on her death. Surrounding circumstances, equally persuasive, were also clearly proven.
2. The conveyances here challenged were made without consideration, but the presumption of a resulting trust is rebutted by the fact the conveyances effected the transfer of title from a husband to a wife. The presumption then would be that the property was put in her name as a settlement. Such presumption is rebuttable by such proof as will leave no reasonable doubt as to the intention of the parties.
3. There is no indication in the evidence of any delay on the part of the complainant which in anywise prejudices the defendant. Complainant is not barred of relief by laches.
4. Courts of equity look with disfavor on such transactions as those here in question, which deprives one of his entire estate.
5. The moneys which complainant deposited in the joint names of himself and his daughter, are actually his moneys. He never intended to make a gift of any part thereof to his daughter.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the Court of Chancery by Vice-Chancellor Woodruff.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.