case edward russel William hayward and other plaintiff Elizabeth Hammond and  other defendant November the that a settlement after marriage in consideration  of a portion pay by the wife father good against creditor and not within the  statute Elizabeth the bill be bring by the creditor of William and germane  Hammond decease for a discovery of their freehold copyhold and personal estate  and to be relieve atkins er p against the several settlement of several part  of their freehold and leasehold estate which be make after the marriage of  William Hammond with the defendant Elizabeth without consideration and  fraudulent respect to the plaintiff as creditor and to have the freehold and  leasehold sell and to go in aid of the other estate of William and germane  Hammond towards satisfaction of the plaintiff demand the defendant Elizabeth  Hammond insist that about she intermarry with William Hammond but such  marriage be without the consent of Thomas stedman her father he then refuse to  give her any portion but afterward William and germane Hammond his father  offer to make a settlement on her Thomas stedman agree to pay pound as her  fortune and by indenture of lease and release of the that and that of Aril in  consideration of pound a freehold estate be settle on William for life with  remainder to Elizabeth for life with remainder to the first and other son of  the marriage with remainder over and by two other indenture date respective  the say that of April in consideration of pound then pay or secure several  leasehold estate of William Hammond be settle in like manner since which  William Hammond be dead intestate leave defendant and four child that the  pound be pay by atkins her father on the execution of the settlement and the  remain pound be pay soon afterward upon the that of February this cause be  hear before the master of the roll who decree a account of the personal estate  of William Hammond and that the same shall be apply in payment of what the  master shall certify to be due to the plaintiff and all other the bind  creditor of William Hammond in a course of administration the same direction  with regard to the personal estate of germane Hammond and if the personal  estate be not sufficient to pay the plaintiff and other bind creditor then his  honour declare that the settlement so make of the leasehold estate be  fraudulent with respect to the creditor and ought to be set aside and that  such part of the leasehold as be the proper estate of germane Hammond at the  time of make the say settlement shall be apply in satisfaction of such of his  bind creditor as his personal estate shall fall snort of satisfy the same  direction with regard to William hammond leasehold estate as be his proper  estate at the time of the settlement and Elizabeth Hammond be to come to a  account for the rend of the leasehold estate and if there shall not be  sufficient to pay the bind creditor then that a competent part of the  leasehold estate of germane and William be sell and the money apply to pay the  bind creditor and order that the matter of the bill that seek to impeach the  settlement of the freehold estate and to make the same liable to the plaintiff  demand shall be dismiss without cost from which decree Elizabeth Hammond  appeal and insist the decree ought to be rectify as to the account direct  against tire of the rend and profit of the leasehold estate for that it appear  by the proof in the cause that the pound be pay down in specie at the  execution of the article by the defendant father and that the pound be  afterward pay by he to William and germane Hammond and therefore the  settlement of the leasehold estate be not fraudulent nor ought defendant to  account for the rend and profit thereof and for that by the say decree the  plaintiff bill so far as it seek relief against the settlement of the freehold  be dismiss without cost notwithstanding the consideration be prove to have be  pay and for that she have possess no part of the personal estate of germane or  William and her answer be in no sort falsify for which reason the bill as  against her ought in general to have be dismiss with cost and therefore pray  the decree may be rectify in all such particular Lord chancellor there be no  evidence whatsoever in the cause to impeach the settlement of actual fraud but  what the plaintiff insist on be that germane Hammond be large indebt at the  time of make the settlement on William the son and that therefore these  settlement be fraudulent upon the statute of the that of Elizabeth c which  regard creditor only atkins I must consider this act of parliament as it will  have be consider at law for I will not lie down any other rule of construction  in equity than be follow at law upon this statute what be pray by the creditor  be the application of these leasehold term as asset for the satisfaction of  their debt the present be a case of general creditor and not atkins er p of  mortgagee judgement creditor or purchaser and therefore not so strong as where  a man have pay his money for the same estate which will have bring it within  the statute of the Elizabeth cap which make every conveyance make for the  intent to defraud purchaser for a good consideration to be utter void see  walker V burrow post there be three settlement in question the first of a  freehold estate the second of a leasehold estate call ford and the three of  another leasehold estate William Hammond the son marry the daughter of one  stedman without the consent of the father of either side no article nor  settlement be make before the marriage Mr stedman afterward propose to germane  Hammond to give pound as a portion with his daughter if he will make a  adequate settlement afterward a kind of survey be take of the premise propose  to be settle and therefore the settlement be not mere colourable the  consideration for settle the freehold be pound pay there be no pretence to  impeach this it be a fair transaction as can be styleman v ashdown post vol b  the second be a settlement of the leasehold estate call ford make in  consideration of the marriage already have and for the consideration of pound  pay or secure to be pay the question be whether tail shall prevail against the  creditor of germane as a good settlement a great deal have be say upon this  head but it depend upon circumstance and every case vary in that respect there  be many opinion that every voluntary settlement be not fraudulent what the  judge mean be that a settlement be voluntary be not for that reason fraudulent  but a evidence of fraud only Boveys case in vent Mod ld tendam v Mullins  though I have hardly know one case where the person convey be indebt at the  time of the conveyance that have not be deem fraudulent there be to be sure  case of voluntary settlement that be not fraudulent and those be where the  person make be not indebt at the time in which case subsequent debt will not  shake such settlement so shaw v lady standish vern walker v burrow post  Middlecome v Marlow post vol Lord townsend v Wyndham Ves Stephens v olive bro  Charles Rep by if indebt at the time Beaumont v Thorpe Ves or if there appear  any badge of fraud to deceive creditor as if a man make a settlement with a  view to his be indebt at a future time styleman v ashdown post vol Fitzer v  Fitzer ibidem tailor v Jones ibidem atkins but I will not enter into a nice  disquisition whether every voluntary settlement be or be not fraudulent  because I think as to the ford estate there be a valuable consideration upon  the face of the settlement for the father be tenant for life and the son  entitle to the reversion in tail this do not appear in the register book  indeed Lord hardwicke reason respect the ford estate seem rather to apply to  freehold than to leasehold property and where father and son join in a  marriage settlement it be a bargain for a good and valuable consideration and  have be so hold in several case but then the question be whether it have be  extend to creditor in the present case the son can not have settle the  residuary interest without the father help because he be tenant in tail in  reversion and not in possession but if the father have be tenant for life and  the son tenant in fee and have join in such settlement it will have make a  material difference for then I shall have think this good against creditor for  there be no occasion for the son join as the son may have dispose of the  residuary interest without he I be of opinion beside here be a fair pecuniary  consideration as there be a sum of money pay amount to pound by stedman to  germane Hammond and when pay express to be on account of the three pound agree  to be give by stedman as a portion and no other account appear to have pass  between stedman and Hammond but this as to the assignment of the other  leasehold estate it be of a very different nature for it be express to be in  consideration of the marriage and diverse other good consideration all the  deed bear date the same day and it be insist it be inartificial to split they  into three but I can think it be so here for they have make the consideration  of the freehold pound and of the ford estate pound and I can take in the  consideration of those deed which have a quid pro quo and a consideration of  their own to support a three deed but in the last settlement be a plain badge  of fraud for germane Hammond take atkins er p back a annuity to himself and  his wife for life of pound which probable be the full value of the estate  comprise in this deed and therefore give the son nothing this last settlement  do not appear in Reg lib b fol where the above case be state but very short  which be almost tantamount to a continuance in possession and have always be  deem a strong circumstance of fraud twin case   b tailor v Jones post vol  therefore I be of opinion the creditor ought to be relieve against this  settlement the decree be make in Feb very near four year ago and if I shall  enter into the consideration of cost I doubt I must give the plaintiff cost  before the master and though the bill as to two of the matter have no  foundation for relief yet as to a three part videlicet the last settlement it  be as clear for the plaintiff therefore for all party it will be better to  drop the cost his lordship therefore order the say decree to be affirm save as  to that part thereof which relate to the settlement of the leasehold estate  call ford and as to the plaintiff bill so far as it seek to impeach the  settlement of that leasehold atkins estate and to make the same liable to the  plaintiff demand his lordship dismiss the same without cost and as to the cost  of the rest of this suit that the say decree whereby the same be reserve till  after the say report be vary as follow that to the time of hear this cause at  the roll no cost be pay on either side but that the consideration of cost of  such other part of this cause from such hear be reserve till the master shall  have make his report the ten pound deposit to be pay back to the defendant Reg  lib b fol