In Williams v. Williams, 178 Cal. App. 2d 522 [3 Cal. Rptr. 59], the defendant testified that he had purchased certain stock in the joint names of himself and his wife because his bank had insisted that it be done in that manner and also because of the dictates of his faith, and that he never intended to give his wife any interest in the stock; this was held to be sufficient to sustain the trial court's conclusion [202 Cal. App. 2d 92] that the shares remained separate property of the defendant. In Huber v. Huber, supra, 27 Cal. 2d 784, real property was purchased with separate funds of the defendant husband and placed in joint tenancy. The court's finding that the property nevertheless remained the separate property of the defendant was sufficiently supported by the defendant's testimony that he told his wife that he " '... fixed it so you will get half if we are married at the time of my death,' " that he did not intend to give her any present interest in the property and that he did not understand the legal effect of joint tenancy, coupled with the testimony of witnesses that the wife never made claim to any interest in the property.