case vuhitchurch all versus dnam bayntun June debt on bind for payment of sum  certain to be prefer in payment to demand on article sound in damage on the  marriage of Mr Henry bayntun with the defendant then the lady and willmott by  article of July Mr bayntun agree to settle pound per and jointure and pound  per and more on the issue male c and lady whether agree when of age to levy a  fine and settle her land on Mr bayntun and the issue of the marriage her land  be value at pound Mr bayntun when of age confirm the article by a endorsement  and afterward a settlement as make by Mr bayntun which be approve of by the  countess of Rochester the defendant mother but in fact though the jointure be  near pound per and the land upon the issue male do not hold out to be pound  per and and great part of that too in reversion Mr bayntun by purchase sir  Edward hungerfords estate of Farley castle become Vernon chancery case great  indebt and in June devise all his land unsettle to be sell for payment of his  debt the bill be bring by the creditor of Mr bayntun against the widow his  infant son and trustee to have the land sell for payment of debt complain it  be obstruct by the defendant set up so many pretend claim by the  marriageagreement c the defendant disclose the article and the settlement  after make and the deficiency thereof in point of value per cur there be no  covenant that the estate shall continue of the value in the article nor that  it shall be of that value in present possession and therefore the settlement  ought to stand the article be sufficient perform and if the settlement be  deficient yet in regard there be no covenant in the article nor mention of any  particular land the widow and infant must come in for a satisfaction after the  bondcreditors who debt be ascertain and fix and their demand on the article  only sound in damage the countess of Rochester and John bayntun the infant son  of the testator have file a crossbill to have the defect in value supply which  be dismiss without cost Reg lib b fol enter Whitchurch v uvarneford note the  simple contract creditor of the testator come in and contribute be order to be  allow the benefit of the decree but nothing be say in the decree of the widow  and infant come in for a satisfaction after the bondcreditors vide eel v  Lambert cite in lancy v Fairechild ante where say to have be resolve that a  contingent security shall not stand in the way of a debt by simple contract as  to the administration of asset by a executor