case Willson versus pack all pale yellow Ch Eq Abr pl S c Eq Abr pl S p wms  vezey atk atk atk brown parliament case bro p c and ed e contract wms Chan Rep  these be authority respect specialty creditor see also atk where the wife  paraphernalia will be liable to the husband debt the plaintiff be a woollen  draper and have sell to the defendant intestate cloth and other good to above  pound value for which after the intestate death have bring his action against  one Busby who by the consent of the widow pack have take out administration  and upon plene to manage plead and find for the defendant the plaintiff have  judgement de good intestate cum accident and the widow precedent in chancery  pack be possess of several diamond jewel and other thing to the value of pound  and upward which she pretend to have buy out of money allow her for her  separate maintenance as pinmoney pursuant to a agreement make before marriage  with her father the plaintiff bring his bill against the widow Busby the  administrator and the father the trustee to discover asset and to subject  these jewel to a course of administration in order to pay the plaintiff debt  for the plaintiff it be insist that admit it have be prove these jewel have be  buy with the money save by the defendant out of her separate maintenance or  pinmoney yet they ought to be subject to the plaintiff debt that it be in  nature of a stipulate paraphernalia and be only the ornamental part of the  wife it be more reasonable to subject it to pay the husband debt than that his  creditor shall starve that true it be if such settlement or separate  maintenance be make before marriage or after in pursuance of article execute  before that the husband creditor can not break into the fund or subject that  to his debt yet these jewel be buy with the money arise thereby the property  be immediate change and they become the husband and to construe it otherwise  will be to set up a separate rule of property in the wife against law and  reason for the defendant it be insist that there be no manner of foundation  for such construction that the court have already go far in protect even the  interest of money save out of such separate maintenance against the husband  debt then the plaintiff go into his proof to show that this separate  maintenance be make after marriage and so fraudulent and void against the  husband creditor and that these jewel be not buy with the money save out of  the separate maintenance precedent in chancery for the defendant it be insist  that though the settlement be after marriage yet it be in pursuance of a bind  give by the husband before marriage that upon execute such settlement the bind  be deliver up and cancel and that the settlement be recite to be in pursuance  of a agreement make before marriage but as to the bind there be no positive  proof it only go to their belief that there be such a one but either the  father to who it be suppose to be make nor any other can prove it direct then  as to the jewel be buy out of the separate maintenance that be but pound per  and and the jewel above pound value and buy in two year after the settlement  make it plain they can not be buy with money save out of the separate  maintenance and as to the recital in the settlement that it be in pursuance of  a agreement before marriage it be insist that if such bind have be give it be  easy to have mention the date and other particular of it that if such general  recital in settlement make after marriage shall prevail it will open a way to  defraud all creditor and therefore ought not to be allow to bind the plaintiff  who be a stranger and a just creditor Lord chancellor say that the  paraphernalia be only superfluity and ornament to the wife be the reason the  law subject they to the husband debt rather than that his creditor shall  starve but as to such separate allowance if the defendant have prove it to  have be make before marriage and that the jewel be buy with the money arise  thereout they will not have be liable to the husband debt but here the  defendant have fail in both point that to allow such precedent in chancery er  p general recital in settlement make after marriage will be of dangerous  consequence and that it be strange if there be such bind that neither the  father to who it be suppose to be make nor the witness who be suppose to draw  precedent in chancery it shall be able to swear to it that the person who sell  the jewel know nothing of any separate maintenance and have declare that he  trust only the husband and shall have take he for his paymaster and therefore  decree a account to be take of the value of the jewel and they to be sell to  satisfy the plaintiff unless the lady who he believe will be unwilling to part  with they shall pay the plaintiff his debt and the cost of this suit