case MIDDLECOME versus Marlow February a entitle to pound marry while a infant  the husband by deed after marriage agree that the pound shall be to her  separate use for life and after her death to the issue of the marriage in the  deed be a proviso empower the trustee to lend a part or the whole to the  husband he lend he the pound and in fourteen month after he become a bankrupt  the trustee bring his bill to be admit a creditor Lord Hardwicke decree he  shall come in as a creditor under the commission for the money he pay to the  husband a who be entitle to a leasehold estate and a share in the residue of  her father personal estate amount to pound marry during her infancy the  husband by deed after marriage agree with her father executor that the pound  shall be settle to her separate use for life and after her death to the issue  of the marriage and the deed be a proviso empower the trustee to advance the  husband all or any part of the money by way of loan in pursuance of this  proviso the trustee lend the husband all the money and fourteen month after  the execution of the deed he become a bankrupt atkins the bill be bring by the  trustee to be admit creditor under the commission the defendant the assignee  of the bankrupt insist this be not a loan by virtue of the proviso to the  husband but a payment to he of the legacy receipt be produce under the husband  hand for money due on account of the legacy one of which be before the deed  for the sum of one hundred pound the rest after the execution of it Lord  chancellor the question be whether this deed be upon such a consideration as  to prevail against creditor I be of opinion it be for if a man marry a infant  and make no manner of pro atkins er p vision before marriage a settlement make  afterward be good where there be no proof of his be indebt at the time in the  present case it be very far from be a unreasonable settlement as there be no  part of the husband estate settle this be not within the meaning of the  Elizabeth which confine it to such conveyance as be make to defraud creditor  now at the time this deed be make there be not so much as a single creditor  Russell v Hammond ante vol so that even take it at law it will be difficult  for the creditor to come at it if there be any doubt as to the time of the  execution it may be a ground for direct a issue but the evidence be that it be  execute about the time it bear date this be so if you consider it upon the  general equity in this court neither the husband nor any person stand in his  place can have the fortune of the wife without make a provision Jewson v  Moulson ante and the case there refer to if the trustee of the husband have do  the same thing with regard to the wife which the court will have oblige they  to do how be it unreasonable for though I agree the court will not have direct  this settlement suppose the husband have any estate of his own to settle yet  it be very proper as there be no consideration of the husband side and as the  court will have do just the same thing upon the master report this to be the  circumstance of the case there be no ground to call it a unreasonable  settlement so more v Rycault pre Charles brown v Jones ante vol Wheeler v  caril Amb ware v shallet Ves atkins the court never weigh nice what will be  the particular advantage on one side or the other under a settlement if it be  just in general Fitzer v Fitzer ante though after the execution of the deed  the receipt be give as for a legacy yet it must be take to be upon the foot of  the deed of trust and therefore I must decree the plaintiff to come in as a  creditor under the commission for such money as he pay to the husband after  the deed be execute