case kinaston versus clark Trinity vacation SC cite post t d on his marriage  settle his estate on himself for life on his wife for life remainder to  trustee to preserve c remainder to his first and every other son in tail male  remainder to himself in fee a son bear the father die in debt by bind the son  afterward die without issue but by his will devise the estate to the defendant  in fee Lord Hardwicke hold the reversion be come into possession be asset to  pay the father debt notwithstanding the devise of the son Giffard v barber  cite Ves Godolphin v Abingdon ante see also Tweedale v Coventry bro Charles  Rep Thomas Delahay on his marriage settle his estate on himself for life on  his wife for life remainder to trustee to preserve contingent remainder  remainder to his first and every other son in tail male remainder to himself  in fee there be issue a son Thomas the father die indebt by bind the son die  afterward without issue but by his will have devise the estate to the  defendant clark in fee atkins er p Lord chancellor the question be whether the  reversion in fee which be now come into possession shall be asset to pay the  bind debt of Delahay the father I be of opinion that this reversion be come  into possession be asset to pay the debt of the father notwithstanding the son  have devise it to the defendant before the statute of W cap the heir be not  bind by land descend to he where sell or alien before action bring and if a  obligor devise his land the devisee so sell be not liable to the obligee this  statute be to remedy the defect in Elizabeth cap of fraudulent conveyance and  to extend it to fraudulent devise atkins first I will consider whether this  case be within the intention of the statute of W second whether there be word  to explain that intention the general view of the act be to prevent creditor  from be defraud of their debt and to make all devisees equal with the heir  where land descend upon he the know rule upon statute make to prevent fraud be  that they ought to have the most liberal construction as in twine case twine  case   it be resolve in this case by the whole court that all statute make  against fraud shall be liberal and beneficial expound to suppress the fraud  and accord to their opinion diverse resolution have be make there be many case  where the enact part in a statute extend further than the preamble even in  criminal matter as in a act make in Henry cap for try treason and murder where  the word be within the king dominion or without it have be extend to trial in  the Westindies and person have be try there and execute by virtue of this act  it have be object that where a preamble be tie up to a particular case the  court will carry it no further unless there be express word in the enact part  which extend it further see ante vol now in this statute there be two part of  the preamble and both be not tie up to one case for the first part be general  and the latter only confine to a particular case the heir be as much debtor  upon the bind as the obligor and so lie down in Plowden who be more large upon  this head than any of the subsequent reporter a heir must be charge in the  debet as well as the to hold off post Stileman v ashdown post and before the  statute of jeofails it will have be error if otherwise which show plain the  heir be to be consider as a debtor if judgement go by default against a  executor it can only be de good testator but if judgement be by default  against the heir it may be against he personal which be another proof of the  law consider he as a debtor atkins Mr Murray counsel for the defendant put  this case a son and a daughter by one venture a son by the second venture the  father die indebt the son by the first venture enter be seize and die the  daughter be entitle be a possession brother and say Mr Murray she be not  Chargeable with the father debt but I deny his position for she be plain  liable to the debt the act be to prevent the defraud the creditor of any debt  if land have come to a heir in possessiion and he have devise they before the  writ bring it be certain within the statute why not if it come to he in  reversion if in the present case there have be no devise but the land have  descend to the heir of the son and then the estatetail determine and so in  infinitum they will have be Chargeable though the law say that a reversion  after a estatetail be not asset yet it be a gross and inaccurate expression  and be only sub modus for there be a liableness which make it asset in going  to be or in other word a quality to be liable to the debt in going to be  indeed the son may have suffer a recovery and bar the reversion in fee and  there the father creditor will not have come in if he have levy a fine only it  will have bar the estatetail but the reversion in fee will have be liable this  court carry it be power further than the law in some case for instance in  respect to a advowson in gross however doubIful it may be at commonlaw whether  it be asset or be extendible on a elegit as no yearly value can be put upon it  yet Lord chancellor king in tongue and Robinson Michaelmas term decree it to  be sell to pay debt by specialty p W SC see also WesIfaling v WesIfaling post  vol upon the whole I think even at law a action may have be maintain against  the heir and this devisee and such a plead be warrant in cliff entry I be of  opinion too that this estate which be now come into possession be liable to  the atkins er p specialty debt of the father and by circuity the  simplecontract creditor be to stand in the place of satisfy bind Reg lib a fol