case james APHARRY against roger BODINGHAM and the petit jury in a action  against t a heir the averment of asset by dissent shall not he defeat by a  conveyance make by the once stor to the use of himself for life remainder to  his first and every other son in tail remainder to himself in fee with power  to make lease and revoke use provide the jury find it to he fraudulent ante  post     Com dig Cowp oath in attaint attaint on the Henry c for that the  petit jury at the assize at Hertford give a verdict for Bodingham and assign  the faux serement in this that whereas r Bodingham bring debt against I  Apbarry as heir to g his father he plead riens per dissent unde debt is owed  prcedict to loosen to be able c to which the say r Bodingham reply that he  have by dissent videlicet at sus in the same county and issue be take upon it  evidence be give that certain land in S do descend to he as son and heir to  his father but he show a deed indent make in Elizabeth hetween himself of the  one part and Walwin and other of the other part by which he covenant for  natural affection c to stand seize of the land to the use of himself for life  remainder to his first son in tail and so to his other son the remainder in  fee to himself in which there be a clause to give power to make lease and to  revoke the use and the petit jury notwithstanding this conveyance conceive it  to he fraudulent and so void by the Elizabeth c do find that he have asset  notam the action bring by Bodingham be Elizabeth long time after the  conveyance make by Apharry but it be prove that the plaintiff Apharry have  notice of the obligation before the make of the conveyance Glanville for irhe  defendant notwithstanding this conveyance the remainder that croak Elizabeth  er p be limit to his right heir be his ancient reversion and this he have by  dissent and the issue be that he have riens per dissent and he have this  reversion by dissent the issue be find against he though the conveyance have  been good fide but to that it be answer that the issue be that he have nothing  by dissent unde debt is owed prcedid to lift up to be able and although he  have this reversion dissent yet it be a reversion upon a estate in tail it be  not extendible for this debt quod to be con essumper curian absent Anderson it  be then move by the counsel of the plaintiff that this be no fraudulent  conveyance within the Elizabeth c for it be clear that the Elizabeth c a do  not touch it for a conveyance by the Elizabeth c must he make by the debtor  and not his heir or any other for the heir be not a debtor in respect of his  person but in respect of the land Walmsley it seem that it be within the  statute for the heir be a debtor which be prove by the writ against he which  be in the dehet et to hold off whereasan action against the executor be in  croak Elizabeth the to hold off only and so it be within the intent of the  statute but the grand jury may find it special if they will to this Owen and  Heaumond do consent that the conveyance of the heir shall he fraudulent as a  convance by the father who be the principal debtor and so they conceive it  clear but the grand jury give a general verdict and affirm the first verdict  notam when the grand jury be swear the justice demand of the crier what manner  of oath he give to they for the oath ought to be special but Scott the  prothonotary say it ought to be general to try the issue in the attaint to  which the other clerk agree