MOYEB V. ADAMS. 183 �ihe $500 ; that she had insisted upon it before that time, but that he had neglected to have the deed executed. Shank was made use of simply as the channel through which the property was conveyed to the wife by the husband. The house cost between $1,200 and $1,500. The husband says that -when he got the money from the wife he was to pay it back to her. Moyer always paid the taxes on the property and the insurance, and seems to have treated it as his own prior to the conveyance made to his wife. The language used by Moyer is as foUows : "When I got it (the money) from her I was to pay her back; there was no time set; I just said I "would pay her back ; no note was given or anything put in "writing about it ; I never put down in any book that I owed her $500." The property in controversy was worth $2,500 to $3,000. �The case of Stoner et al. v. Adams, was also a bill filed in the district court by the assignee of Stoner & Moyer to set aside a conveyance made November 6, 1877. The facts that give rise to the controversy in this case are these : �Stoner and his wife were married in January 1859, and the wife, about 1868, received from her father's estate the sum of $600. With this money the lot in controversy was purchased, and the deed taken in the name of the husband, July 14, 1868. Stoner built a house on the lot about three years after it was purchased, for which he paid $1,500 of his own money. This property, when the deed was made to her, was worth about $2,500 or $3,000. He had always paid the taxes on the property, and he resided in the house as his own. He had instructed a real estate agent to offer the house for sale at one time, in consequence of which he be- ioame liable to him for a commission, which he did not pay, and for which he was sued, and a judgment obtained against Mm, which he subsequently paid. No writings passed be- iween the husband and wife in relation to the $600 with which the lot had been purchased. No note was ever given fcy the husband for the amount, and no agreement was made to pay any interest. It is said by both that the intention -was that the property should be conveyed to the wifç at the ����
