Husband and Wife—Power to Transmute Separate Property into Community Property.—A husband and wife may by contract transmute the separate property of either into community property.

Id.—Action by Wife to Enforce Trust—Control by Husband of Wife’s Property—Presumption of Trust—Burden of Proof.— •In an action by the wife to enforce a trust against the husband in respect of her separate property, the mere fact that the husband, with her consent, had the management and control of her separate property, does not show any intention on her part to make a gift thereof to the husband, or to change it into community property. The presumption in such case is that it continues to be her separate property, and that the husband takes the corpus or principal of such property in trust for the wife; and the burden of proof is upon the husband to show an intended change by the wife in the' status of her property.

Id.—Express Agreement not Essential—Circumstantial Proof—• Support of Findings for Husband.—It is not essential, in order to support findings for the husband, that the understanding between the husband and wife was that her separate money delivered to him should be treated as community property, and that the wife converted it into community property, that the husband should show an express agreement to that effect on the part of the wife. The change in the status of the property may be shown by the nature of the transaction, or appear from surrounding circumstances, if clearly evincing the intention of the wife to change such status.

Id.—Deposit of Wife’s Money to Credit of Husband’s Account in Bank—Evidence of Husband—Use' as Community Property.— The evidence of the husband that the bulk of the money derived from sales of the wife’s separate property, was deposited by the wife to the credit of the account of the husband in a local bank, where he kept his money, and that he drew from the same in payment of all general expenses of himself and wife, and for purposes of investment of property in his own name, and that it was generally understood between them, without express words, that this was a common fund, to be used indiscriminately for the benefit of the community, and that it was so treated for fifteen years, without objection by her or demand for an accounting, is sufficient, notwithstanding opposing circumstances, to sustain the finding in favor of the husband.

Id.—Tracing of Wife’s Money into Beal Estate.—Where the record shows, without conflict, that some of the money of the wife that came into the hands of the husband, was clearly traced into other property, • a finding that none of the money could be traced is not fully sustained. If there was no change in the status of her separate property, and a portion of it can be clearly traced, she is entitled to the relief asked in respect thereto.

Id.—Prejudicial Error in Testimony for Husband—Evidence of Good Character.—Where the evidence in support of the finding rested almost entirely upon the testimony of the husband, and there was no evidence impeaching his good character, and the case, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, was a close one on the facts, in consideration of the burden of proof resting upon him, it was prejudicially erroneous, against the plaintiff’s objection, to-admit the testimony of witnesses for the husband to his good character for truth, honesty and integrity.