
    Shepperson v. Shepperson & als.
    January Term, 1846,
    Richmond.
    Husband and Wife — Indirect Conveyance from Wife to Husband. — A conveyance by a husband and wife of the wife’s real estate, to a third person, for the purpose of having- the same conveyed to the husband, and thus transferring the estate to him, will be sustained, where no fraud has been prac-tised upon the wife.
    Mildred C. Shepperson, the wife of Charles M. Shepperson, was, at the time of her marriage, possessed of an estate both realand personal. During the coverture, for the purpose of vesting in her husband the legal title to her land, they united in a deed, bearing date the 3d of July 1835, by which they conveyed the land to Elisha Shepperson, who immediately executed another deed, by which he conveyed the same to Charles Shepperson.
    In 1838, Mrs. Shepperson, by her next friend, instituted a suit in equity against her husband,and Elisba*Shep-person, for the purpose of setting aside the deeds executed by her husband and herself to Elisha Shepperson, and by him to her husband. In her bill she charged a fraudulent combination between Charles and Elisha Shepperson to deprive, her of her land; and alleged that she had been deceived as to the consequences to her of executing the deed.
    Elisha Shepperson answered the bill, ánd denied the fraud imputed to him; and stated that he acted in receiving the conveyance, simply because he was requested so to do by the parties; and had nothing whatever to do in bringing about the arrangement.
    The allegations of fraud were not sustained by any proofs; and upon the hearing, the Court below dismissed the bill. Erom this decree, the plaintiff below obtained an appeal to this Court.
    The Attorney General, for the appellant, and Scott, for the appellees,
    submitted the case.
    
      
      Husband and Wife — Indirect Conveyance from Wife to Husband — Presumption as to Fraud. — In Griffin v. Birkhead, 84 Va. 618, 5 S. E. Rep. 685, it is said: “The mere fact that land is conveyed by husband and wife to a third person, and by that grantee is immediately reconveyed to the husband, does not, of itself, raise a presumption of fraud, undue influence, or imposition on the part of the husband, or raise even a suspicion of such in the transaction, for the obvious reason that title to the wife’s real estate can in no other way, be vested in the husband. Shepperson v. Shepperson, 2 Gratt. 501.”
      See further, monographic note on “Husband and Wife” appended to Cleland v. Watson, 10 Gratt. 159.
    
   By the Court.

Affirm the decree.  