case FREMOULT versus DEDIRE et e contra see Montagu v earl of Sandwich Ch d  Lord chancellor Parker Reg lib a fol Eq can ab pl pl one covenant before  marriage to settle certain land on his wife for life and afterward devise  these land for payment of debt the covenant be a specific lie on the land but  a covenant to settle land of the value of pound per annum without mention any  land in certain this be no specific lie but the wife must come in as a  creditor in general and the master to value her estate for life and the wife  to come in for that valuation but the wife to have the arrear before incur as  well as the valuation of her estate for life there be several demand of  several nature affect the estate of the testator Abraham Dedire he owe debt by  bind and by simple contract and upon his marriage have covenant to settle his  land in Rumney marsh and also land that shall be of the value of pound per  annum upon his wife for her life after which he make a will thereby charge all  his estate real and personal with the payment of his debt and die leave his  old son executor on a bill bring by the creditor for the satisfaction of their  several debt Lord chancellor say with regard to the land in Rumney marsh the  marriage article be a specific lie upon they make the covenantor as to they  but a peer William trustee and therefore during the life of the wife they be  not to be affect by any of the bind debt so finch v earl of Winchelsea ante  but the covenant for settle land of the value of pound per annum on the wife  for her life do not special bind any land wherefore as touch that the wife  must come in only as a specialty creditor with the other specialty creditor so  William v Lucas Cox and in order to settle the quantum of this demand let the  master set a estimate on the wife estate for life videlicet at so many year  purchase and then the wife to come in as a creditor by specialty for so much  money but in regard the pound per annum be in arrear for two year at the time  of the hear of this cause she must come in as a creditor for pound for these  two year arrear beside the value of her estate for life and though it be  object that the master ought to value what her lifeestate be worth at the time  of her husband death yet the court overrule this for these two year arrear be  a debt actual due to her and must in all event be pay and she run the hazard  of a fall of her life in the mean time and if her life have drop there must  have be no valuation and so it be say to have be rule on debate in one  Berrisfords case in Lord harcourt time also it be submit to the court that  forasmuch as in this ease the land were not devise to be sell for the payment  of debt but permit to descend charge with the debt and consequent be legal  asset by descent as to the bind creditor and charge only in equity by the will  as to simple contract whether the bind creditor shall not be prefer to those  by simple contract peer William by Lord chancellor as this case be they shall  but if the heir before any action bring have sell the land and then the  creditor by bind have bring their action they shall have be pay only their  share out of the asset and it be ob peer William er p servable that by the  express word of the statute of W m cap where there be any devise or  appointment by a will of land for payment of debt or child portion accord to a  agreement before marriage other than the heir at law such will shall be of  force see the distinction take between legal and equitable asset in Deg v Deg  post Vol two then it be contend that these marriage article be make in holland  and that by the law of holland such article take place of any other debt  wherefore they shall be here construe accord to the law of holland where they  appear to have be make which be say to have be hold in the case of Feaubert  and turst pre Charles and bro p c S c to which it be answer and so rule that  it ought to have be prove in this cause what be the law of holland as in the  cause of Feaubert and turst it be prove what be the law of France without  which proof our court can take notice of foreign law glover v Strothoff bro c  c ganer v Lanesborough peak n p c Le Cheminant v Pearson Taun ex part Cridland  rise v b and see Evans stat