
    Henry Luers et al., administrators &c., appellants, v. Peter Brunjes et al., respondents.
    
      Mr. John Linn, for appellants.
    The cases of Besson v. Eveland, 11 C. E. Gr. 468, and Post v. Stiger, 2 Stew. Eq. 554, and Clarke v. Rosencranz, 4 Stew. Eq. 665, all admit that if a wife be a bona fide creditor of her husband he may secure her in the same manner that he may secure any other bona fide creditor.
    A husband indebted to his wife may prefer her as his creditor. Monroe v. May, 9 Kan. 473; Drury v. Briscoe, 42 Md. 155; Rowland v. Plummer, 50 Ala. 193; Woodworth v. Sweet, 44 Barb. 268, 51 N. Y. 8; McCartney v. Welch, 44 Barb. 271, 51 N. Y. 626; Wallingford v. Allen, 10 Peters 594; Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 623; Schaffner v. Reuter, 37 Barb. 44; 
      
      Jaycox v. Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 395; Savage v. O’Neill, 44 N. Y. 298; 2 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 1373.
    
    
      Messrs. Collins & Corbin, for respondents.
    At common law, it was the rule that if a married woman authorized money settled to her separate use paid to her husband, or permitted him to receive her income, she could never recall it. Caton v. Rideout, 1 Macn. & G. 601; Darnaby v. Darnaby, 14 Bush 345.
    
    Although the married women acts have introduced a new element into this class of cases, still the fact of the close relationship has always been reckoned of importance in determining whether the payment of money between husband and wife is to be regarded as a loan or a gift. Steadman v. Wilbur, 7 R. I. 486; Paulk v. Cooke, 39 Conn. 571; Edelen v. Edelen, 11 Md. 420; Kuhn v. Stansfeld, 28 Md. 210; Humes v. Scruggs, 4 Otto 92; Annin v. Annin, 9 C. E. Gr. 189; Besson v. Eveland, 11 C. E. Gr. 471; Clarke v. Rosencranz, 4 Stew. Eq. 665.
    
   Per Curiam.

This decree unanimously affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet in Luers v. Brunjes, 7 Stew. Eq. 19.  