When a husband and wife are involved in a property transaction, can the husband be held liable for his debts?

I take this case as laying down this rule, that where a question of fraud arises, even where husband and wife are mixed up in it, you may not from mere suspicion find that there was fraud: there has got to be evidence that makes it clear that there has been fraud, and it must be fraud to affect the question. Now, the circumstances that I have mentioned in this case are suspicious. But there is the fact that this man was insolvent, that he was unable to raise means to support his family, that his wife did find the means and procure the property to do so, that she worked the property herself and did everything else with respect to it which I have stated and made the payments upon it, and there is no evidence to contradict it. I therefore can perceive no grounds whatever, under the authority of Hull v. Donohoe that would justify me in finding that the property in question is the property of the husband and liable for his debts.