In a conversation with the plaintiff’s testator, F. A. Garner referred to government bonds found in Mrs. Barwick’s home and the testator (Thomas Hill) remarked, “Yes, the bonds were some I gave my wife; they were her bonds.” An exception was taken by the plaintiff on the ground that the bonds had not been identified; but the only bonds claimed by either party were those in the possession of Mrs. Hill and of her two daughters and their identity could not reasonably be questioned.
Mrs. Murvin testified that Mrs. Hill had said in the presence and hearing of her husband, Thomas Hill, that she had given the bonds to *455ber daughters, Mrs. Barwick and Mrs. Sutton, and bad given Mrs. Barwick tbe keys to tbe trunk in wbicb tbe bonds were kept; also tbat tbe statement bad been made while they were resting during tbe noon hour. Tbe husband beard and understood bis wife’s statement at a time when be bad ample opportunity to deny or dissent, and from bis passiveness or silence an inference of acquiescence might naturally be deduced. S. v. Jackson, 150 N. C., 831; S. v. Walton, 172 N. C., 931; S. v. Pitts, 177 N. C., 543.
Exceptions 7, 8, 9, and 10 are addressed to tbe statement of contentions wbicb were not called to tbe attention of tbe court and to wbicb no exception was entered, and tbe appellant cannot first complain when tbe case comes up on appeal. Proctor v. Fertilizer Co., 189 N. C., 243; S. v. Ashburn, 187 N. C., 717. It is objected, however, tbat bis Honor erroneously instructed tbe jury tbat upon tbe admitted facts Thomas Hill bad no interest in tbe crops grown upon tbe lands occupied by him and bis wife; tbat in tbe absence of evidence tending to show be bad rented tbe lands from ber tbe presumption is the crops were hers; and if be invested tbe rents and profits of tbe farm tbe property purchased by him would belong to bis wife and not to him.
As a rule property purchased by a husband with tbe money of his wife creates a resulting trust in ber favor (Tyndall v. Tyndall, 186 N. C., 272); but tbe appellant relies on C. S., 2514, wbicb provides, “But no husband who, during tbe coverture (tbe wife not being a free trader under this section) has received, without objection from bis wife, tbe income of her separate estate, shall be liable to account for such receipt for any greater time than tbe year next preceding tbe date of tbe summons issued against him in an action for such income or next preceding ber death.” If this section should be deemed applicable to suits of this character tbe instruction complained of does not call for a new trial. There is evidence tbat Thomas Hill received tbe income from bis wife’s farm and at one time bad tbe bonds in bis possession, and there is evidence tbat bis wife bad them in ber possession, claimed them, and repeatedly said tbat she bad given them to ber two daughters. There is no evidence tbat Thomas Hill bought tbe bonds with bis wife’s money or, indeed, tbat be bad bought them at all, apart from evidence tending to show they were in bis possession. On tbe latter point tbe evidence tends with equal force to sustain tbe possession of tbe defendants. In these circumstances we do not regard tbe instruction complained of as just cause for disturbing tbe judgment and verdict. McNeill v. R. R., 130 N. C., 256; Pressly v. Yarn Mills, 138 N. C., 410; Eubanks v. Alspaugh, 139 N. C., 520.
We think tbe evidence tending to show Mrs. Hill’s delivery of the bonds to ber daughters was properly submitted to tbe jury.
No error.