case BRUNSDEN versus Stratton ante Eq Abr c SC c S c a settlement make after  marriage on the wife and child pursuant to article enter into previous to the  marriage though not exact agree with they not voluntary nor fraudulent against  bind creditor on the marriage of the defendant her intend husband be under age  and so incapable of make a settlement the wife father give a bind for the  payment of pound on his make a suitable jointuresettlement on her without take  any notice whatsoever of the issue the marriage take effect and the husband  some year after on payment of the pound make a settlement of pound per and or  thereabouts on himself for life remainder to his wife for life for her  jointure with remainder to their first and other son in the usual form the  plaintiff be bind creditor of the husband and now after his death bring this  bill against the wife and child to set aside this settlement on pretence the  same be voluntary and fraudulent be make after marriage especial as to the  child for who no provision appear to be make on the treaty previous to the  marriage and that therefore the plaintiff ought to be let in for a  satisfaction of their debt but the master of the roll be clear in opinion that  this be no fraudulent or voluntary settlement precedent in chancery be but  adequate to the wife fortune and that the word of the bind be capable of such  a construction for that a jointuresettlement must be intend a settlement in  the common form to the issue and a jointure for the wife and Mr Vernon say  there can be little doubt of this since the case of Parslowe and Weedon Eq Abr  pl Trin where it be hold that though since the statute against fraudulent  devise a man can not by will devise his estate to defeat his bind creditor yet  any settlement or disposition he shall make in his lifetime whether voluntary  or not voluntary will be good against bind creditor for that be not provide  against by the statute which only take care to secure such creditor against  any imposition which may be suppose in a man last sickness but if he give away  his estate in his lifetime this prevent the descent of so much to the heir and  consequent take away their remedy against he who be only liable in respect of  the land descend and a bind be no lie whatsoever on the land in his own land  and if he may give they away to a stranger much less can this settlement on  his wife and child deem voluntary or fraudulent as to such creditor though he  say that till that resolution he shall have be of another opinion and that  such a disposition have be hold fraudulent against creditor in the case of  Templeman and beke try before my Lord chief justice holt so the plaintiff bill  be dismiss in this case it be likewise say by Mr Vernon that before my Lord  nottingham time it be hold that where the land be devise to be sell for the  payment of debt and legacy that both shall be pay acquire step but he hold  that the debt ought to have a preference for that as he say he will not make a  man sin in his grave and so it have be hold since that the debt in such case  shall have a preference in payment precedent in chancery er p in the case of  gosling v Dorney Vernon Lord n be erroneous say to have hold otherwise in sir  John bowless case and that Lord keeper north determine that there shall be a  preference in vern greaves v Powell accord to the statement of that case it  appear that Lord n s opinion coincide with Mr Vernon observation