atkins case brown v jones and other October the that though the court will  favour creditor yet it must be where they have a superior right to other  person the bill in this case as bring by the assignee under a commission of  bankruptcy against Roger William to have a real estate belong to the bankrupt  sell the question in this cause arise upon a settlement make by the bankrupt  of this estate upon his wife and child after marriage the attorney general for  the plaintiff state the settlement to be make on the that of August between  Roger William and his wife and Richard blencoe and the defendant brown and  another person as trustee recite to be in consideration of a marriage already  have and the sum of pound pay as a marriage portion to William by blencoe who  be brother to his wife and for settle a jointure and convey to the trustee to  the several use follow to Roger William for life and from and after the  determination of that estate to the trustee to preserve contingent use during  Roger williams life and from and after his decease to Elizabeth the wife for  her jointure and after the decease of husband and wife to the use of the  trustee for and during year on such trust as herein and hereafter express and  after the determination of that estate to the first and other son in tail male  there be no declaration of the use of the term of year nor any receipt endorse  on the back of the settlement and as there be no declaration of the trust of  the year term he insist the result use or trust will revert to the husband who  give it and therefore will enure for the benefit of the creditor of the  husband Mr brown of the same side the circumstance of fraud in this case be  very strong the settlement be not make till ten year after marriage Roger  William the husband never think of this deed or mention it on his last  examination which be very suspicious and look like a plank lie hold of to save  they from shipwreck Mr solicitor general for the defendant the wife and child  Roger William be no trader in and the act of bankruptcy be not till six year  afterward if it be a mere voluntary settlement perhaps it can not be support  against the creditor but there be many agreement after marriage which may be  suppose as fair and for valuable consideration Scott v ball lev a question  between purchaser and the issue of the marriage whether a agreement after  marriage be for a good and valuable consideration Lord atkins chief justice  hale say the court in family agreement do not nice estimate the value of the  estate but only whether it be a fair and honest agreement the fact in the  present case be short these Roger William be seize of this estate in have only  pound with his wife at that time and no settlement then make Mr blencoe her  brother apply to Roger William to make a provision for his sister Roger  William say he will not do it for nothing on which blencoe agree to advance  pound the that of June a receipt be give under the hand of Roger William to  Pottinghal a attorney in the follow word receive of my brother Richard blencoe  the sum of pound b the hand of Mr Pottinghal in consideration of the  settlement to be make upon my wife the settlement be execute in August after  Richard blencoe die the October follow and therefore the remain pound be never  pay there be no receipt endorse be so far from be a circumstance of fraud that  it show the fairness because as the whole pound be not pay they can not proper  endorse it in answer to the objection of the year term have no declaration of  trust it must be consider as if the husband be contend all the use show it to  be a marriage agreement the limitation indeed be to trustee general belt be  declare to be for such a trust as be thereinafter express the term be to stand  no further than it shall be thereafter declare and the very nature of the  agreement show that it can result for the benefit of the husband and it be  demonstration to a court of equity that it can never be intend that the use of  this term shall be for his benefit because it will make the limitation to the  son of no value there be no doubt then but the party mean it as a provision  for young child and the want of the formal deed a lease for a year not  material atkins er p Mr attorney general be reply the fact prove be that this  sum of pound be in consideration of a settlement to e make it be pretty  extraordinary that this sum shall be pay three month before the settlement  execute to make this a consideration it be incumbent upon they to show it be  the money of the brother but it be express to be in consideration of pound in  hand pay for the marriage portion but not say to be pay by the brother Mr  blencoe neither have he sign the deed now if he be a party contract on his own  account can it be think he will not have sign the deed it do not appear that  this be a portion which can not be receive without come into a court of equity  therefore it be hard to say that this be such a consideration that the  creditor of the husband shall not have a sale of the estate without establish  the provision for the wife this be not a settlement to be carry into execution  therefore the court must take it on the very term on which it stand atkins  Lord chancellor this case be make out to my satisfaction though the court will  favour creditor as much as they can it must be where they have a superior  right to other person the question in the cause be saint whether the deed be  to be consider as a valid settlement dly if it be whether the creditor can  claim any benefit under the settlement now as to the first it depend upon the  consideration for it must be agree if the bankrupt have make a settlement  without consideration it be not good this be a question of act and be  sufficient prove to satisfy I it be admit if a settlement be make before  marriage though without a portion it will be good for marriage itself be a  consideration see ex part marsh ante Lanoy v Athol post vol and it be equal  good if make after marriage provide it be upon payment of money that as a  portion or a new additional sum of money or even a agreement to pay money if  that money be afterward pay pursuant to the agreement this be allow both in  law and equity to be sufficient to make it a good and valuable settlement such  settlement good not only against creditor but against purchaser Colville v  Parker cro James Jones v marsh can tempt Talb ware v shallet Ves Hylton v  Biscoe Ves Wheeler v caril Amb Lanoy v Athol post vol the receipt Roger  William give for the pound make it very clear it be the money of blencoe the  wife brother for the word be in consideration of my make her a jointure or  marriage settlement it have be object that this be a recital only under the  hand of a bankrupt and therefore suspicious but to take off the suspicion the  son of Pottinghal swear he see this receipt in his father hand in six year  before Roger williams bank ruptcy another objection be that the pound be pay  before the settlement make therefore it can be deem as the consideration of  the settlement a consideration execute be as good to support a settlement as  it be at law to support a assumpsit to pay money at a future time it be  further object that it do not appear on the face of the receipt that it be the  brother money but may be the wife and consequent a choose in action of the  wife which the husband may have recover in possession suppose it have be so if  it have be in the hand of the brother and the sister have be marry indiscreet  and the brother hold his hand till the husband make a provision it be honest  do and be no more than what the court will have do and will equal support it  as if a bill have be bring against the husband to make a provision for his  wife so more v Rycault Prec Charles Middlecome v Marlow post vol Wheeler v  caril Amb ware v shallet Ves like v Berrisford bro Charles Rep the creditor  stand only in the place of the husband and the statute of the James cap be  make to put creditor under a commission of bankruptcy in the same condition  with creditor under the statute of the and Elizabeth it have also be object  that this be a defective settlement at law for want of the lease for a year  vide negus v reinal keb ford v grey Mod can salk SC atkins but notwithstanding  the court will aid creditor against defective or fraudulent conveyance and  without consideration and voluntary settlement yet if they have no remedy at  law but must come into equity this court will make they do equity which bring  it to the case of tailor v Wheeler vern a mortgage copyhold atkins er p land  to b but the surrender not be present within the time limit by the custom  become void afterward a become bankrupt on a bill by b against the assignee  this defective surrender be make good the same equity will arise in the case  of a conveyance by lease and release the lease be lose do not at all concern  the substance of the case and a consideration be prove I e a consideration of  marriage or blood for a pecuniary consideration will not raise a use by way of  covenant to stand seize for the reason of this distinction the reader be refer  to the editor essay on use and trust fol see also Loyd v spillet post vol here  we must observe that if a person pay a valuable consideration for a estate and  by some defect or omission in the conveyance of the purchase land to he the  legal estate be not proper convey in this case though the consideration can  not create a use by way of covenant to stand seize yet the vendor will be  consider a trustee for the purchaser see pollexfen v more post vol though the  lease be miss yet the release will amount to a covenant to stand seize the  settlement therefore must stand the second question be if it be a valid  settlement whether the creditor can claim any benefit under the settlement the  assignee can claim no more benefit than Roger William himself which be the  profit of this real estate for the life of the bankrupt the only question then  be on the term of year after the limitation to the wife for her jointure then  the settlement go on and limit it to the use of trustee their executor c for  the term of year for such use as herein and hereafter express it have be  object by the plaintiff counsel as here be no declaration of the trust of the  term that it be a result trust for the husband and as undisposed of in law and  equity result to the donor in the settlement it have be determine so in the  case of voluntary settlement and will but then the question will turn upon  this whether it be not a settlement for valuable consideration and in the  nature of a contract for the benefit of the wife for her jointure and a  provision for the benefit of the issue which in this case it certain be and  therefore as to this the assignee can e in no better condition than the  bankrupt himself the court always take agreement of this kind accord to the  nature of the agreement itself the limitation to the son after this term will  not be worth half a crown if the plaintiff objection shall prevail which will  overturn and defeat the use of this settlement and therefore if the husband  have be the plaintiff in the cause the court will have consider it as a trust  term only to attend the inheritance accord to the limitation in this  settlement atkins in the case of uvedale v Halfpenny before sir Joseph Jekyll  will the trustee to preserve the contingent remainder be place after a  limitation of a estate tail to the son and vet he decree the settlement to be  rectify without any evidence of the fact or intention of party as to the place  of the limitation so Kentish v Newman p W Targus v puget Ves Worsley v earl of  Granville ibidem see Ridout v Dowdin post the present be a thing of the same  kind in the reason of it beside the word themselves will warrant that  construction on the whole the plaintiff be entitle only to the interest the  husband have in the estate which be but for his life and decree accord atkins  er p