BROOKS VS. DENT. 527

The trust created by that agreement was a secret trust. It
dates back to the year 1825 or 1826, and though Mr. Brawner
lived until the fall of 1838, and the record title was in him from
the month of August, 1825, no attempt was made during his
life to assert any right or title founded upon the agreement. So
far as the record in this case informs us, the first assertion of
this right on the part of Mrs. Brawner, was made in her An-
swer to this bill, filed in September, 1845.

Now, it seems to me, it would be establishing a precedent
of the most pernicious and perilous character, to allow these
secret trusts to be set up to defeat the rights of creditors. If
the alleged agreement had been performed by the husband, and
the title of the wife placed upon the public records of the
county, the case would have presented very different consider-
ations. But here is a case, in which, as early as 1825 or 1826,
the husband became the purchaser of the property in question,
at a sale made under the authority of a Court of Chancery,
and from the year 1835 until the answer of the wife was filed
in-this cause, in 1845, his title was spread upon the public land
records of the county, and he was held out to the world as its
undisputed owner.

As I am fully persuaded the secret agreement put forward in
the answer of Mrs. Brawner, cannot avail her, even if shown
to exist by unexceptionable evidence, as against the creditors
of her husband, OF at all events against subsequent creditors,
it remains to be seen whether she can successfully assert a ti-
tle to the property upon any other ground.

If it could be shown clearly, that the money with which this
land was purchased, was supplied by the wife, a trust might
result to her, being implied by law, from the intention of the
parties, and the nature and justice of the case; and such trust,
being expressly excepted from the operation of the statute of
frauds, may be proved by parol, not only against the face of
the deed itself, but even in opposition to the answer of the
trustee, and possibly after the death of the nominal purchaser.
Boyd vs. McLean et al., Johns. Ch. Rep., 582; Dorsey vs.
Clarke et al., 3 H. & J., 551; Maccubbin vs. Cromwell, 7
0. Sf J., 157; Bottsford vs. Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep., 405.