case lily v osborn sir Joseph Jekyll master of the roll Eq can ab pl one not  in debt nor then a trader make a voluntary settlement on a child and afterward  become a trader and a bankrupt this settlement not liable to the bankruptcy  one purchase a copyhold and take a surrender of it to the use of himself for  life remainder to the use of his wife for life remainder to the use of trustee  for twenty peer William er p one year to raise pound for his daughter  remainder to the use of himself in fee at the time of this purchase the  purchaser be no trader nor owe any debt but afterward he engage in trade  contract debt and about sixteen year after become a bankrupt whereupon a  commission be take out against he and his wife die the commissioner assign  over the copyhold premise which the assignee sell to the defendant allow he to  detain in his hand the pound in order to answer it to whosoever it shall be  adjudge due and the only question be whether this be within the clause in the  statute of James cap sect where it be say that if any person which hereafter  be or shall be a bankrupt shall convey or procure or cause to be convey to any  of his child any land or tenement good or peer William chattel except the same  be purchase convey or transfer for or upon marriage of any of his or her child  or some valuable consideration it shall be in the power of the commissioner to  dispose of the same as if the bankrupt have be actual seize or possess thereof  money be not within the statute ex part shorland Ves Kensington v Chantler m S  and it be object that this come exact within the word be a provision for a  child and mere voluntary without any consideration as against creditor to  which opinion at first incline the master of the roll but afterward upon cite  the case of crisp v Pratt cro car where it appear that the person suppose to  be a bankrupt have settle a copyhold estate on himself his wife and his son  and the heir of his son and the person at that time not be in debt but a clear  man not then so much as a trader and the settlement be two year before he be  concern in trade and six year before any act of bankruptcy commit by he in  that case the court of b r videlicet three judge against Berkeley hold it not  within the act accord in the principal case consider the party be not so much  as a trader when he make the settlement the master of the roll be clear that  the say settlement be not liable to the bankruptcy but if the party be a  trader at the time of the purchase c it seem that his solvency will not  protect the transaction from the operation of the statute friar v flood bro g  c walker v burrow atk Glaister v hewer Ves pound