case FITZER versus FITZER and Stephens February Lord river by will give a  annuity of pound to the plaintiff who afterward in marry the defendant Fitzer  in they agree to part by a deed of separation the husband covenant to allow  her pound per and out of his own estate a lid pound more to be pay quarterly  out of the annuity of pound and pound a year to his daughter by the plaintiff  for her maintenance to be pay quarterly the bill be bring against the husband  and Stephens a creditor of his since the execution of the deed of separate  maintenance to have the trust of that deed perform Lord Hardwicke decree  accord to the prayer of the bill as against the husband and as to Stephens  that he shall not release his claim upon the annuity till the plaintiff have  pay he his debt Lord river by his will give a annuity of pound a year during  life to Catharine Adair now Fitzer the plaintiff in this cause Payable  quarterly and by a codicil direct that all his land shall be charge with the  payment of it atkins in she marry the defendant Fitzer and in they agree to  part and by a deed of separation the husband covenant to allow her a separate  maintenance of pound per and out of his own estate and pound more to be pay  quarterly to her out of though annuity of pound and pound a year to his  daughter by the plaintiff to be pay quarterly to such person as shall maintain  the daughter the bill be bring by the wife and daughter against the husband  and against Stephens who be a creditor of the husband since the execution of  the deed of separate maintenance and to who all his estate real and personal  have be assign pursuant to the direction of the insolvent debtor act Geo c to  have the trust of the deed perform it be insist by the defendant Stephen  counsel that this be a voluntary deed be make aftermarriage and with regard to  creditor be fraudulent and of no consideration and clear within the saint of  Elizabeth c twine case   and Eq Cas Abr be cite to show that natural love and  affection be no consideration for the plaintiff it be insist that the  Elizabeth say only that it shall be a good consideration and not a full and  adequate consideration and that this conveyance if for a good though not a  adequate one have take it out of the statute vide Jones versus marsh Cas in Ch  in ld Talbot time be cite they argue likewise from the inconvenience that will  arise if such a construction shall v pre ail as be contend for by the creditor  counsel because it will be almost impossible to make a settlement of separate  maintenance that will be of any force which though they be not desirable yet  be too often necessary thing for the husband by contract debt afterward will  have it in his power to defraud the wife and deprive her of any maintenance  the true construction they say upon the statute be that where a deed be mere  voluntary and intend as a fraud that it shall be consider as fraudulent  against creditor but where there be some consideration though not a full one  that it shall be otherwise the creditor have he in execution only for pound  and year afterward the husband take the advantage of the insolvent debtor act  Lord chancellor have you any instance of it be be hold in this court that a  conveyance from a husband to a wife without any pecuniary consideration move  from the wife have be hold to be good against creditor atkins Mr attorney  general counsel for the plaintiff say that indeed natural love and affection  alone will not be a consideration but here there be a very good one the  maintenance of the wife and daughter for suppose the wife have institute a  suit in the spiritual court for alimony and the husband that way of defence  have insist there upon his deed of separate maintenance they will have  consider it as a provision in that court and give sentence against the suit  which show that the ecclesiastical court do not hold it to be voluntary but  bind upon the party atkins er p Lord chancellor the question be with regard to  the deed of separation of and the trust declare in it whether they be  fraudulent within the Elizabeth against the defendant Stephens the creditor  see ante vol Russell v Hammond it be certain that every conveyance of the  husband that be voluntary and for his own benefit be fraudulent against  creditor consider then whether this trust deed be not so the plaintiff before  marriage be entitle to a rentcharge of pound a year for her life from Lord  Riverss estate she marry the defendant Fitzer and for some time afterward they  live together as man and wife and though the husband by law be bind to  maintain his wife and child yet still the fund out of which the maintenance be  to arise be liable to his creditor this be so he convey the annuity to trustee  to secure the payment of pound per and to the wife and pound to the daughter  it have be insist on the part of the plaintiff here be a sufficient valuable  Consideration though it be admit on all hand that natural affection alone be  not one but I by no mean allow this be a consideration for if it be a husband  and wife need only agree to put some part of his estate out of his power by  vest it in trustee for her separate use in order to defraud the creditor the  case in the spiritual court put by the attorney general be upon the  misbehaviour of the husband and be the determination of a court of justice who  have jurisdiction in these case beside their decree for alimony and  maintenance be only against the person of the husband and do not affect any  part of theestate so as to take it from the husband creditor a proviso in the  deed of separate maintenance that if the wife contract debt whereby the  husband be Chargeable then the atkins deed be to be void so that  notwithstanding this deed she may at any time disavow it and take up good  accord to her rank for here be no covenant on the part of the trustee to  indemnify the husband but rest bare upon the agreement it have be argue for  the plaintiff that the husband be deliver from the burden of maintain his wife  and daughter but here be no covenant from the trustee or relation of the wife  that the husband shall not be oblige to allow her a great maintenance or that  the husband shall be discharge from such maintenance it be still strong with  regard to the daughter for she be a infant at the time the deed be execute and  can not be bind by it and beside the father by nature be oblige to maintain  her so that the party be not bind at all then consider it as a assignment  which the husband himself may make use of to fence against creditor and  consequent it be fraudulent this case stand quite abstract and naked from a  case where there may be a covenant by relation of the wife to indemnify the  husband against debt of the wife but I will not now determine what the  construction of even such a deed will be with regard to a husband creditor  note but it have be since determine that a covenant of indemnity to the  husband by trustee against the debt of the wife be a sufficient consideration  as against creditor Stephens v olive bro Charles Rep king v brewer ibidem  Compton v Collinson ibidem this be not like the case of Jones versus marsh for  there pound be pay by the wife relation and I be not to weigh consideration in  too nice scale Middlecome v Marlow post the next thing which have be insist on  for the plaintiff be that suppose no such deed have be execute as it be a  rentcharge of the wife before marriage and the husband have become a bankrupt  the court will not have decree it to the assignee during the life of the  husband unless they have first agree to secure some provision for the wife  this be the case of a freehold of a wife and devise to her for life and during  the coverture the husband may have a legal remedy by distress for the arrear  but he can not have convey it away to her prejudice f r if she have survive  she will have be entitle to the rentcharge again will the court where this be  the case have hinder the husband of his legal remedy by distress till he have  first make some provision for his wife I apprehend by no mean Jewson v Moulson  ante and reference any more than they will do it where a man marry a woman  seize of land in fee atkins er p atkins and even in the case of assignment of  bankrupt estate or the late case of Jewson versus Moulson e con Oct vide ante  the court have not determine that creditor be not entitle to the interest the  husband have in the wife choose in action during his life but have recommend  it to they to allow a gross sum to the wife by way of provision and to take  the rest to themselves to prevent a great trouble his lordship decree that  upon the plaintiff mrs Fitzers pay the defendant Stephens the remainder of his  debt that Stephens shall release all his right to the annuity to the trustee  of the deed of separate maintenance he decree likewise the trust of the deed  to be perform as against the defendant Fitzer the husband cost be give to the  creditor only