Ray v. Long.
38 S.E. 291
N.C.
1901
Check Treatment
Claeic, J.

Exceptions 4 and 5 must be sustained. It was error when his Honor told the jury, “If, when the land was *91 bought and deed taken from Thomas H. Long, if it was done under an agreement that husband and wife were to hold by entireties,” or “to hold an interest in the land according to the amount of her payment,” the wife was entitled to the land, or the half thereof (as the case might be). The marriage having taken place since 1868, he should have said to the jury, as laid down in Kirkpatrick v. Holmes, 108 N. C., 206, and approved in Ross v. Hendrix, 110 N. C., 405: “If her separate estate went into the hands of her husband, and he invested it in land, taking title in his own name in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, a trust would have resulted to her.” In Brisco v. Norris, 112 N. C.,676, it is said this equitable title was “such as to enable her, upon the strength of it, to recover the land from her husband, or from any one purchasing of him with notice of her rights, or from any one who had bought the land at a sale under execution against her husband, for such person would acquire only such title as her husband had.”

This renders it unnecessary to> consider the other exceptions, since they may not arise on another trial.

New trial.