The equity set up by the plaintiff is met by the averment on the part of the defendant, Jenkins, “that he is a bona fide purchaser of the land for full value and without notice.” This averment, not being “ controverted,” must be taken as true, and is a full defense to the action, upon the admitted doctrine, “ where the equities are equal,- the law prevails.”
In our case the equity of the plaintiff is not equal to that of the defendant Jenkins ; for her equity is supported only by parol proof, tending to slxow that the defendant Powell, her husband, instead of taking a deed of trust for her separate use, by “inadvertence” (as he says) took a deed to himself absolute on its face, which enabled him to have credit astheower of the land. This state of things continued for eighteen years, dmiug all of which time her husband -was recognized as the owner of the land. These facts made her equity. Supposing her to have had one secondary to the equity of the defendant Jenkins, who is a bona fide purchaser for full value without notice, (even if the equity of the plaintiff.was equal to his, and was not subject to the drawback of fraud by allowing her husband to “ sail under false colors,” and incur debts upon the ei’edit of his hav*128ing a deed for this land), her case fails. For the rule is, “ when the equities are equal, the law prevails.” Here the defendant Jenkins has the legal title, and having equal equity, the Court will not interfere.
As to the other defendants, the plaintiff has no cause of complaint, except against her husband, Smith II. Powell, for having, by “inadvertence, and contrary to his intention,” procured a deed to be made to him, without a declaration of trust in her favor; but the complaint is not framed with reference to any relief against the husband of the plaintiff.
There is no error.
Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.