Can a married woman create a parol trust in her land in favor of her husband ?
The defendant alleged as a defense to the action instituted by the plaintiffs that the communication between Ruth E. Oxendine and Barker constituted a trust in favor of defendant. The allegation of the answer asserting this defense is as follows: “That at and prior to the time the land set forth and described in paragraph one of the complaint were purchased, a parol agreement was entered into between the defendant, Joseph W. Oxendine, and his wife, Ruth E. Oxendine, to the effect that *480the lands described in the complaint would be purchased and held as a home for the said parties, the same not to be mortgaged or encumbered, but to belong to the said Joseph W. Oxendine and wife, Ruth E. Oxen-dine, and owned by them as a permanent home. . . . That by virtue of said understanding and agreement the said property became and was the property of Joseph W. Oxendine and wife, Ruth E. Oxendine, and that it amounted to tenancy by the entirety, and that upon the death of said Ruth E. Oxendine, the said property, by virtue of the understanding and agreement between the parties, vested absolutely in the defendant, Joseph W. Oxendine, and that by virtue of said parol trust agreement the said Joseph W. Oxendine is now the owner of said property in fee simple.”
The defendants, in their brief, assert that: “It is not contended by the defendant in this case that there is any resulting trust in his favor.” _ So that the naked question presented is whether the wife, in the light of the evidence, created a parol trust in said land in favor of her husband, or that she held her half interest in said land as a tenant by the entirety. There is no allegation of mistake of the parties or of the draftsman of said deed, and no correction or reformation thereof is sought in this action.
It is thoroughly established by law in this State that if a husband conveys land to his wife, or procures the title to be made to her by another, that the law presumes it is a gift- to the wife. Singleton v. Cherry, 168 N. C., 402; Nelson v. Nelson, 176 N. C., 191; Tire Co. v. Lester, 190 N. C., 416.
The facts, in their final analysis, present a situation in which the wife, with her own money, seeks to purchase land, and, while the deed is made to her, she undertakes to impress upon the title a parol trust in favor of her husband in the event .he should survive her. The rule relating to the creation of a parol trust by a married woman in favor of her husband is thus expressed in Mordecai’s Law Lectures, vol. 2, p. 1067: “A feme covert cannot create a parol trust in land, for to permit such a thing would be a subterfuge to evade the Constitution and statutes made for her protection. However, this rule may apply to her own property only, and not to property in which she has no beneficial interest. To create a trust in land is, in effect, the conveyance of an interest therein; and in order to convey an interest in her land the written consent of the husband, as required by the Constitution and statute, and her private examination as required by the statutes, are essential.” Farthing v. Shields, 106 N. C., 289; Thurber v. LaRoque, 105 N. C., 301; Ricks v. Wilson, 154 N. C., 287.
The defendants rely upon the cases of Ray v. Long, 132 N. C., 891, and Murchison v. Fogleman, 165 N. C., 397. In both of these cases the title was taken in the name of the husband, although the purchase money
*481in both, instances was paid jointly by tbe husband and the wife. Under these circumstances the Court held that the wife could enforce her equity against her husband, but, as we interpret the decisions, they do not sustain the position that the husband could enforce a like equity against the wife under the circumstances as disclosed by the facts. As the money which Ruth E. Oxendine paid for the land belonged to her, even though the deed had been made to her and her husband, at her request, constituting an estate by entirety, still the husband could not retain the land by survivorship for the reason that “if the wife alone be entitled to a conveyance, and it is made to her and her husband jointly, the latter will not be allowed to retain the whole by survivorship. And it matters not if the conveyance is so made at her request, because being.a married woman, she is presumed to have acted under the coercion of her husband.” Clark, C. J., in Deese v. Deese, 176 N. C., 527; Sprinkle v. Spainhour, 149 N. C., 223; Speas v. Woodhouse, 162 N. C., 69; Crocker v. Vann, 192 N. C., 422; Carris v. Tripp, 192 N. C., 211.
¥e are therefore of the opinion, under all the facts, disclosed in the record, that the judgment was correct and should be upheld.