atkins case tailor versus jones June stand for judgement at the roll a husband  who have pound stock devise to he after marriage vest it in trustee for the  benefit of himself for life of his wife for life and afterward for the benefit  of his child the settlement be void both as to creditor before and after the  marriage and the trust estate be decree to be sell and apply to the payment of  the husband debt the bill be bring by simple contract creditor of the  defendant the intent of the bill be that the plaintiff may be pay their debt  out of pound stock vest in trustee for the benefit of the defendant for life  of his wife for life and afterward for the benefit of his child the money so  invest in trustee be a legacy leave to the husband after marriage note the  settlement be make in and in the defendant give warrant of attorney to confess  judgement against he the creditor give he a letter of licence but it be agree  that that shall not prevent they from proceed against his effect though it  shall protect his person master of the roll this be a case between creditor on  the one side and a wife and child on the other and therefore I direct the  cause to stand over not from any particular difficulty in the case but because  a wife and child be concern I be of opinion it be a fraudulent settlement with  regard to creditor the first question be whether the settlement make in trust  for the wife and child atkins er p be fraudulent in general as it stand single  and independent of the plaintiff the creditor it have be insist on for the  wife and child that this settlement be for a good consideration nay look upon  very often as a valuable consideration since they be in some respect esteem as  creditor with regard to the father there be no doubt in this respect but it be  a valuable consideration as against a father even after marriage and even  against a voluntary conveyance Goodwin v Goodwin Charles Rep Eq ab SC villiers  v Beaumont vern all v arm ibidem Clavering v Clavering vern Hobson v Staneer  Mod do they Watson v Routledge Cowp but I look upon it to be a stand rule as  to creditor for a valuable consideration that it be always look upon as  fraudulent and within Elizabeth c against fraudulent deed alienation c the  next question be whether this deed be within the proviso or save of the  statute now there be no doubt though this be upon a good consideration with  regard to the person make it yet otherwise as to creditor vide twine case    the chief reason there be that the person by who the conveyance be make atkins  continue in possession it be resolve likewise in Upton versus Basset cite in  twine case that no purchaser can avoid a precedent conveyance make by fraud or  covin but he who be a purchaser for money or other valuable consideration for  though in the preamble to this statute of Elizabeth c it be say for money or  other good consideration and likewise in the body of the act yet those word  good consideration be to be understand only of valuable consideration and this  appear by the clause of land first convey with condition of revocation for  there it be say for money or other good consideration pay or give the word pay  be to be refer to money and give be to be refer to good consideration so the  sense be for money pay or other good consideration give which word exclude all  consideration of nature or blood or such like and be to be intend only of  valuable consideration which may be give and therefore he who purchase land  for valuable consideration be a purchaser only within the statute now in the  present case here be a trust leave to the husband in the first place under  this deed and his continue in possession be fraudulent as to the creditor the  plaintiff the next consideration be whether the debt contract after the  settlement make be include in this statute of Elizabeth see Russell v Hammond  ante vol the preamble be for the avoid and abolish of feign covenous c  fraudulent feoff gift bind suit c which feoff c be devise and contrive of  malice c to the end to delay or defraud creditor and other of their just and  lawful debt c be it enact c the word other seem to be insert to take in all  manner of person as well creditor after as before the settlement who debt  shall be defraud in the enact clause still strong because the word creditor be  not mention but general word person or person that all and every feoff c at  any time have or make or hereafter to he have or make to or for any intent or  purpose herein before declare shall be from henceforth deem c as against that  person or person his or their heir executor c who debt c by such fraudulent  practice as be aforesaid be shall or may be in any wise or in any way disturb  or defraud c to be clear and utter void the word of the statute therefore seem  to be so general in order to take in all person who shall be any way hinder or  delay c atkins this be the intention I think it be high reasonable it shall be  so construe and no rule of law that hinder creditor after marriage any more  than creditor before from be pay and it be very probable that the creditor  after the settlement trust Edward Jones the debtor upon a supposition that he  be the owner of this stock upon see he in possession three case have be cite  to make this a fraud first Osbourn and Bradshaw versus churchman cro James but  it do not come up to the present case for the question there be not whether  the deed be fraudulent but whether the interest in the land pass atkins er p  second lavender versus Blackstone which come near the present vide levinz  where hale be of opinion that every conveyance shall be esteem prima fancy  fraudulent against a purchaser but circumstance may alter the case Whitbourne  versus jumper before sir Joseph Jekyll be still near and though it be not  quite the present case yet it resemble it very much with regard to the  agreement between the plaintiff and defendant videlicet that if they will  allow he two year to pay their debt he will give a warrant of attorney to  confess a judgement the great question be if this deed be fraudulent for if it  be whether the creditor have any specific lie be not material for as soon as  the judgement be enter it will have be a specific lie these be the case which  confirm I in my opinion for the defendant be cite the case of Littleton versus  Marlow before Lord Hardwicke but there it be the wife fortune that be settle  which vary the case for here it be not the wife fortune that be settle but  what the husband be entitle to in his own right the case of Stileman versus  ashdown December ante S c post S c which be cite though a settlement after  marriage be in consideration of the wife portion and therefore different it be  not material in the present case what the circumstance of the father be at the  time of make this deed any further than as a evidence to show if he be in  indigent circumstance that it be make with a intent to commit a fraud atkins  but the material consideration be whether it be within the proviso of  Elizabeth for if it be not the court will not require a strict proof of its be  fraudulent and as it be likewise accompany with a trust the court will look  upon it to be so and there be no occasion to prove it for it lie on the part  of the defendant to prove what his circumstance be at the time of make the  deed as he may be suppose to know it much better than the plaintiff it be upon  these reason I must decree for the plaintiff the creditor against the wife and  child for though I have always a great compassion for wife and child yet on  the other side it be possible if creditor shall not have their debt their wife  and child may be reduce to want he decree the deed of settlement to be void as  against the plaintiff and the trust estate to be sell and apply to the payment  of the creditor Reg lib b fol in dundas v Dutens Ves jun Lord Thurlow seem to  be of a opinion that the court of chancery can not touch stock to satisfy  creditor say vide horn v horn Amb king v Dupine October Mr Dupine be entitle  to the reversion of four exchequer annuity after the death of mrs Dufour and  Margaret the wife of Peter Henry which annuity be vest in trustee by a decree  of the court of chancery upon the above trust so that Dupine be in fact but a  cestuique trust in reversion the plaintiff have obtain a judgement against  Dupine file her bill against he the trustee and other see post vol S c after  the come in of the answer of the trustee she file her supplemental bill state  that a become facias have issue upon her judgement and that the sheriff have  by virtue thereof seize the reversion of these four exchequer annuity and have  make a assignment thereof to one warden in trust for herself that she wish to  have the assignment register have apply to the proper officer for that purpose  but he refuse to register or record the say judgement and assignment because  neither the plaintiff nor her trustee be in possession of the order which have  be make out or the tally which have be strike for the payment of the say  annuity plaintiff therefore pray by her supplemental bill to have the  reversion of those annuity sell and out of the money to arise by such sale to  have her judgement debt satisfy the defendant the trustee by their answer  submit whether the sheriff can seize the reversion of the annuity and make  such assignment thereof as aforesaid and whether the same ought to be sell and  the defendant Dufour and Henry admit that they have the order for the say  annuity in their possession Lord Hardwicke decree that the plaintiff bill  shall be take pro acknowledged admitted fact as against Dupine and as between  the plaintiff and the other defendant his lordship decree among other thing  that the trustee and warden shall assign all their reversionary estate or  interest in the say four long annuity to the plaintiff that Dufour and Henry  shall produce upon oath before the master the order whereupon the say annuity  be Payable and in case any entry be necessary to be make at the exchequer in  order to entitle the plaintiff to the benefit of such reversion then the  master shall appoint a proper person to attend there with the order to the  intent that such entry shall be make and after such assignment and entry make  that the order shall be deliver to Dufour and Henry subject to the order of  the court and after their death the plaintiff or such person as shall be  interest therein shall be at liberty to apply to the court to have such order  deliver to her or they Reg lib a fol atkins er p