Also, under this section when considered with the other sections of this part of article 2 of title 14, it has been uniformly held that contracts and conveyances between husband and wife are presumptively valid and effectual, without proof aliunde of their equity or justice. Wells v. Caywood, 3 Colo. 487 (1877); O'Connell v. Taney, 16 Colo. 353, 27 P. 888 (1891); Kellogg v. Kellogg, 21 Colo. 181, 40 P. 358 (1895); Daniels v. Benedict, 97 F. 367 (8th Cir. 1899); Coon v. Rigden, 4 Colo. 275 (1878).

Courts can only carefully scrutinize transactions between husband and wife to see that they are not collusive, and in fraud of the rights of others, and then apply to them the same rules and legal principles that control in dealing with others. Stramann v. Scheeren, 7 Colo. App. 1, 42 P. 191 (1895).

Husbands and wives are equal under the law in respect to the conjugal affection and society which each owes to the other. Williams v. Williams, 20 Colo. 51, 37 P. 614 (1894).

Gifts made by the husband, while sick, to the wife, were set aside at the suit of the executors of the husband's estate after his death, because of the undue influence exercised by the latter over the former in procuring the same. Meldrum v. Meldrum, 15 Colo. 478, 24 P. 1083 (1890).

It was held that a deed procured by the fraud of the wife to be made to a third party for her benefit would be set aside in equity Meldrum v. Meldrum, 15 Colo. 478, 24 P. 1083 (1890).

Under this section the wife holds an absolute legal estate as free from the common-law rights of her husband as if she were unmarried. Palmer v. Hanna, 6 Colo. 55 (1881).

For the wife's separate estate when she has no husband, see Palmer v. Hanna, 6 Colo. 55 (1881).

Since this section confers upon the wife capacity to take and dispose of real property free from any restraint, the reason of the common-law rule has ceased to exist. Wells v. Caywood, 3 Colo. 487 (1877); Whyman v. Johnston, 62 Colo. 461, 163 P. 76 (1917).

This section provides that any gift of money from the husband shall be the sole and separate property of the wife, and not subject to the disposal of the husband or his creditors. Woodruff v. Clarke, 128 Colo. 387, 262 P.2d 737 (1953).

Where the husband owned city lots and the wife had money which she desired to invest, and under mutual agreement the lots were improved with her money, it was held that she had an equitable interest in the property which could be asserted against her husband. Stramann v. Scheeren, 7 Colo. App. 1, 42 P. 191 (1895).

Where the husband acquires and pays for real property, and causes his wife's name to be inserted in the deed as one of the grantees therein, there is a presumption that he intended it as a gift or advancement, and the burden of showing otherwise is upon him who asserts it. Woodruff v. Clarke, 128 Colo. 387, 262 P.2d 737 (1953).

There can be no doubt of the power of a husband to dispose absolutely of his property during his life, independently of the concurrence, and exonerated from the claim of his wife, provided the transaction is not merely colorable, and is unattended with circumstances indicative of fraud upon the rights of the wife. Goldberg v. Musim, 162 Colo. 461, 427 P.2d 698 (1967).

If the disposition of the husband be bona fide, and no right is reserved to him, though made to defeat the right of the wife, it will be good against her. Goldberg v. Musim, 162 Colo. 461, 427 P.2d 698 (1967).