case bedford against gibson Michaelmas term Geo in what case voluntary annuity  charge upon the real estate shall be postpone in payment to debt due to the  bind and simple contract creditor of the decease grantor of such annuity the  late duke of wharton be a young nobleman of immense fortune and of a finish  taste in polite learning have a great affection for dr young in by grant  recite that the improvement of the polite art and science be of public utility  and that dr young have make great progress and advance in they in reward  therefore for his endeavour he grant he a rentcharge out of his estate of one  hundred pound ayear for his life with a express clause of distress in the duke  vest his estate in trustee by sale c to pay all his debt by another deed  recite the former grant to dr young and that the duke stand indebt to dr young  in two hundred and fifty pound and that dr young do some time since the former  grant at the instance and request of the duke quit the place and service of my  Lord Exeter and thereby lose a annuity of one hundred pound and whereas the  duke be Willing to make he some amends for such loss he grant he a second  annuity or rentcharge of one hundred pound more for his life out of his estate  modern report er p with like power of distress and it be in proof that dr  young do live in the family of my modern report Lord Exeter and that he quit  it to go to the duke of wharton and that this be the consideration of this  second grant be under the duke own hand and seal in the duke make a second  general deed of trust of the surplus that shall be in the hand of the first  trustee in order to pay all his just debt the question be whether both or  either of those annuity to dr young be charge out of and affect the land shall  be prefer to the bind or simple contract creditor of the duke for valuable  consideration or whether they or either of they shall be postpone to such bind  or simple contract creditor for valuable consideration Mr attorneygeneral  argue against dr young that indeed both his annuity shall be charge upon the  surplus of the duke estate in the hand of his representative for though the  annuity be voluntary yet they shall not be set aside by the grantor or his  representative unless for fraud but notwithstanding that they shall be  postpone to creditor for valuable consideration that this be like the case  where a man die indebt by bind and simple contract for valuable consideration  and have also give voluntary bind though at law such voluntary bind shall be  pay equal with the bind for valuable consideration and shall be prefer to  simple contract creditor for valuable consideration because the court of law  do not inquire into the actual consideration but as it be a deed or specialty  under the hand and seal of the party presume the consideration to be valuable  yet in this court they shall be postpone even to simple contract creditor for  valuable consideration upon this ground of equity that a man must pay before  he can give and must be just before he will be permit to be bountiful and  though they shall be postpone to real debt yet they shall be charge upon the  executor if they have asset to pay they and the law have be so hold ever since  the decree of my Lord Harcourt in the case of Jones v Powell a Eq Abr a which  the chancellor admit but the first grant to dr young be voluntary for although  it be true that dr young have make great improvement in the politer science  and though they be of great use yet that be no reason why a particular person  shall pay he for this and give a voluntary annuity in preference of his real  creditor for no particular consideration move to the duke more than to any  other person and if such grant as these shall prevail real debt will never be  pay for insolvent person will be always defraud they by such grant the  consideration of love or friendship to stranger import a deed to be voluntary  though in the case of a child it be otherwise because his parent be bind to  provide for he that the second grant be not much better the consideration be  not adequate to the annuity of one hundred pound for life for the loss of the  salary in Lord Exeter family be precarious be to modern report exist during  like and at further will not be continue beyond the education of the young  nobleman that though this court do not weigh consideration minutely yet where  consideration be very small they be badge of fraud and there be a difference  where a value can be set upon a consideration and where not as where a  marriage be concern or a familysettlement to be make one can state or  ascertain the consideration by say you shall give so much or so much and there  the court will enter into the adequateness of the consideration in the present  case the consideration be not adequate and therefore will relieve against this  charge and only let it stand as against the creditor for valuable  consideration as a security for two hundred and fifty pound lend and interest  Mr solicitor general for dr young the question be whether these deed be void  by the statute of Elizabeth and the same determination will be in this court  upon those statute as there will be at law for the reason why the question  come here be because the fund appoint for payment of the creditor be vest in  trustee the neglect of voluntary bind in this court to simple contract debt  where they be to be pay by executor or administrator out of legal asset be not  applicable to the present case for these be not bind nor be they Payable out  of legal asset but they be charge issue out of real estate for the payment of  which there be a provision make by estate vest in trustee and upon the statute  of Elizabeth modern report er p there will be two consideration the first what  consideration they be which those statute require in deed to prevent their be  fraudulent and void as to purchaser and creditor for valuable consideration  the last whether these deed have such consideration as will support they it be  by no mean necessary under these statute that the consideration of a deed must  be money nor that it must be such a consideration as will entitle the party to  a assumpsit at law and where the consideration be quid pro quo it be not  necessary that the thing part with shall be adequate to the thing give as  appear from leo this case do not prove what it be cite for though the  solicitor Genetal say the second jointure may double the value of the first  but this do not appear from the case neither the word money nor voluntary be  use in the whole statute but the word go throughout to fraudulent and  collusive conveyance to defraud creditor in Lord Teynhams case a Mod a Lord  hale say that in the construction of the statute of Elizabeth three thing be  to be consider fraud consideration and good fide and that good fide be  opposite to fraud that though there be no money consideration yet it may be no  fraudulent deed and a modern report deed may be voluntary and yet not  fraudulent the latter resolution I must own be contrary to this last part that  as to the second point whether the consideration support the present deed as  to the first deed the grant be by no mean unbecoming the duke of wharton who  be a young nobleman of great quality and vast estate a great genius have a  tincture for letter especial polite literature write himself have read much  classical learning desirous of fame and upon his come into the world ambitious  to be the patron of learning and learned man it be say indeed that as the  consideration of the first deed be dr young public performance that can not  raise a sufficient meritorious consideration to the duke because every member  of this kingdom receive equal entertainment and benefit from such performance  as the duke do that may be true and though the deed shall not prevail if any  person reward another for any labour which serve the public yet if it engage  he to spend his time in any branch to serve the public by the temptation of a  salary that will raise a valuable consideration so as to support the deed in  the same manner as if he have engage he to employ himself for the grantors own  private benefit Hardwicke Lord chancellor the question be whether these  annuity or either of they ought to prevail against the bind or simple contract  creditor for valuable consideration upon this there have be one original point  mention at the bar which this case have be improper compare to and treat as  though it be upon the same ground which be this the court of late year have  establish this rule to postpone voluntary bind or debt to those for valuable  consideration and it have be adhere to ever since the creation of it by Lord  Harcourt in that case of Jones v Powell and the rule be limit as where a man  owe debt by bind or simple contract for valuable consideration and afterward  give voluntary bind and die the latter shall not only be postpone to the bind  but even to the simple contract for valuable consideration which shall be  first pay out of the legal asset by the executor or administrator but the  voluntary bind be to be pay by the personal representative out of the surplus  if there remain any but this rule have never be extend beyond that case of  payment out of legal asset by a executor or administrator and so do not come  up to the present case for these be not demand of debt out of legal asset but  of rentcharge grant by deed out of the land and such as at law affect the duke  estate at the time when they be grant for the first be grant considerable  antecedent to the first deed of trust and be a charge upon the estate as to  the last though it be grant after the duke have part with his estate to  trustee yet he have a equitable estate in the surplus and it be a charge upon  that so that I be of opinion that this be not a case within that rule of this  court as to the administration of asset for there none of the creditor have a  specific lie upon the asset they all stand in the same light and this modern  report court have a modern report er p more extensive power over they than in  this case where the annuity be specific liens upon the land out of which they  issue the true question between the party be upon the statute of Elizabeth  whether upon both or either of these deed which be grant of rentcharge there  be such consideration as will support they against subsequent creditor or  purchaser for valuable consideration the two deed will fall under different  consideration the first deed be that of and the consideration appear upon the  face of it which I agree be a honourable consideration it have generosity it  have everything in it which become a great man but I shall go much far than  this court ever have do to say it be such a valuable consideration as the  statute intend if the consideration have be that dr young have be invite by  the duke to instruct he although of full age yet if the duke have receive  instruction and the doctor spend his time even his company will have be  sufficient upon the statute of Elizabeth to have support the deed against the  creditor for whether a man give his money his learning or his time it be a  sufficient consideration but nothing at all of that sort be prove nor do it  appear upon the deed for that be general for the love which he have for dr  young great ability and improvement in the politer art and the consideration  have be as meritorious if he have grant a annuity to he in consideration of  his great learning or of his be a relation to he or of blood all which be  honourable consideration but they be not such as will prevail against creditor  or purchaser upon the foot of that statute suppose then this deed to be  voluntary yet the counsel say it be not void by the statute because it be not  fraudulent that may have be so hold former but the late resolution be all to  the contrary for it be now a sufficient reason to set aside deed or grant in  favour of creditor and purchaser because they be voluntary without any proof  of fraud for the presumption amount to proof and though voluntary gift or  charge have be create yet they shall not stand in the way of future creditor  although they have express notice of such gift before their purchase mortgage  c the counsel for dr young have recourse to another point to preserve the  first deed and say that although the consideration express upon the face of  the deed be voluntary yet there be a extrinsic consideration which be a  valuable one although it be not express upon the deed and they have enter into  proof of it and that be his leave Lord Exeter family and the provision of one  hundred pound ayear make for he there to come and live with the duke of  wharton but as to this part of the case it be in the first place doubtful  whether this proof can be let in upon this deed and in the next place it be  clear that the proof do not bring this fact to be the consideration of this  grant as to the modern report admission of this proof the deed have a express  consideration videlicet the improvement dr young have make in the polite  letter and the deed do not add for other good cause and consideration and the  general rule be that where express consideration be mention in a deed and no  general word as for diverse other good cause and consideration there no proof  can be admit of any extrinsic consideration although it may be consistent with  the express consideration of the deed but suppose this proof can be entertain  yet the proof will not avail dr young for though Mr Carew who be the only  witness upon it establish the fact that dr young live at Lord Exeter and have  a annuity of one hundred pound and that he leave that family to come and live  with the duke yet he do not prove that that fact be the consideration of this  grant to dr young and upon the whole I be of opinion that this first grant can  by no mean be establish against the creditor of the duke of wharton although  they become so subsequent to the grant but as to the second grant I be of  opinion that there appear a sufficient consideration to support it upon he  statute of Elizabeth against the duke creditor and that consideration be  sufficient prove and establish for this recite the former annuity and that the  duke of wharton stand indebt to dr young in the sum of two hundred and fifty  pound be the arrear of the former annuity and that dr young do some time since  at his instance and request quit and leave the place and service of my Lord  Exeter and thereby lose a annuity of one hundred pound and whereas he be  Willing to make he some amends be give he a further annuity in consideration  of the two hundred and fifty pound and of his quit the Lord modern report er p  Exeter service this consideration be sufficient prove for Mr Carew prove that  dr young live with Lord Exeter and have such annuity there and quit it to go  to the duke of wharton and that that be the consideration of this second grant  appear under the hand and seal of the duke now this consideration be  sufficient upon the statute of Elizabeth for here be a loss on one side and a  advantage on the other and this second deed recite that this annuity be grant  as a compensation for the loss of Lord Exeter service exclude the presumption  of the other annuitys be grant upon that consideration for if it have it will  have say the second annuity be as a further or additional compensation and  this court will not weigh consideration in very nice scale for upon the  statute it be sufficient if it be good and fair though not a equivalent to the  thing grant and I be of opinion in the present case that the arrear of two  hundred and fifty pound upon the first annuity will be a valuable  consideration for the grant of a second for the voluntary annuity be good  against himself and he may be lie in prison for the arrear or his land  distrain upon for they though the decree will perhaps be otherwise upon the  administration of legal asset in the hand of a executor or administrator for  there a voluntary bind shall be postpone to simple contract creditor for  valuable modern report consideration suppose a man give a voluntary bind to  pay money in two or three month and the time expire whereby the obligor be  liable to be throw into prison and afterward give a new bind for the money and  have the old one deliver up this new one can be call a voluntary bind and yet  if it be not to be perform as well as the former voluntary bind it will annul  all debt for valuable consideration for the party need only to doublehatch his  debt and then it be secure to he effectual but the present case differ as I  have say from the rule observe in the administration of asset for here it be a  grant or charge out of a real feesimple estate therefore I be of opinion that  the first deed will not prevail against either the bind or simple contract  creditor for valuable consideration but that the latter shall take place of  both and that the former shall be pay out of the surplus in the hand of the  duke representative if any remain