case thomas partridge and catherine his wife against Gopp and other that April  bill against child for discovery of sum advance to they pendent light by their  father a insolvent executor it appear on the answer that two of they receive  pound each on their marriage that two other receive pound each for their  maintenance it be decree that the two last shall refund although they deny  knowledge of their father insolvency lib Reg b foe S c Eden Edward Godfrey by  will give pound to trustee upon trust to pay the interest to Sarah Washfield  afterward Sarah clark for life for her separate use and after her decease to  pay the same among her child which she shall have by her then present or any  future husband in manner therein mention a bill be bring by Sarah clark and  her husband against Catherine Godfrey widow and Joseph jewel the executor of  the testator and against other claim under his will for a account of his  personal estate and to have the pound secure by decree of the d July a account  be direct to be take of the personal estate against Godfrey and jewel Joseph  jewel by a order of the that of August be commit to the fleetprison for  nonpayment into the bank of the sum of pound part of the estate of Edward  Godfrey in his hand where he remain till his death in and he have make the  defendant Gopp and Edward executor the cause be revive against they in July  there be a further decree to carry on the former account for a account of the  real estate and for the legatee to abate proportional on the that April the  master report a considerable balance due from the estate of jewel to Edward  Godfrey the plaintiff have discover that jewel have advance to his child  diverse sum of money videlicet pound to each of his four daughter who have  legacy under the will of Edward Codrey arid the estate of ambler Godfrey prove  deficient to pay the legacy and jewel die insolvent plaintiff on the that of  October file a supplemental bill against Gopp who marry one of jewel daughter  since decease Elizabeth Edward widow another daughter who marry Henry Edward  decease and against Sarah and Catherine jewel for a discovery of the money so  advance and to have the same refund Copp by his answer admit that jewel give  he pound in November on the day of marriage as a portion with his daughter  which he say be in pursuance of a agreement before the marriage Elizabeth  Edward make exact the same defence she marry that October Sarah and Catherine  jewel by their answer say that Joseph jewel in December ambler er p make they  a free gift of pound each for their maintenance and subsistence in the world  they all deny knowledge of the bad circumstance of jewel at the time he  advance the money there be no evidence in the cause and on its come on to be  hear before Lord Northington in July when the answer be read it be argue for  they plaintiff on two ground saint that as the four child be legatee in the  will of Edward Godfrey those sum must be consider as pay by jewel the executor  to they as part of their legacy and as the asset turn out deficient to pay all  the legacy they must refund so far as they have receive more than their  proportion of the asset in respect to the other legatee and this seem to be  the only question make by the supplemental bill d question which arise from  the answer which deny that the money advance be on account or in part of their  legacy or that the same be to their knowledge or belief part of the personal  estate of Edward Godfrey or that the advancement of those sum by jewel be  fraudulent against ambler the legatee of Godfrey who be creditor of jewel in  respect of the asset of Godfrey possess by he for the defendant it be argue  that the answer be read for the plaintiff they must be take to be true that by  they it appear that two of say sum of pound be advance as portion on the  marriage of whether and of Elizabeth and therefore not to be consider as  voluntary and fraudulent that as to the money advance to the other two  daughter it be not to be consider as mere voluntary but in discharge of a debt  of nature if there be no collusion equity will consider it as payment of a  debt and there be no collusion here the defendant have swear they be ignorant  of his circumstance gift of personal estate within the statute must be such as  be make with a intent to defraud creditor there must be a secret trust for the  donor that the statute be different as to real estate for the estate remain  and can be consume as personal estate money may be spend and go and therefore  the gift be voluntary be sufficient evidence of fraud as to land but not as to  money that April Lord Northington have take time for consideration state the  case and the admission in the answer and then proceed the question be whether  these sum advance by a insolvent executor shall be refund it have be insist  for plaintiff first to be fraudulent gift within Elizabeth d if not to be  consider as payment pro tanto of their legacy for the defendant it be argue  that it be not fraudulent because there be no secret trust but payment of a  debt of nature the only account be in the defendant answer which I must take  entire as to Gopp and Edward it be give on marriage marriage be a good  consideration Amb and therefore as to they the bill must be dismiss as to the  two other child it strike I at first as a hardship to make the child refund  especial as such a gift can not be consider as a trust for the giver but on  consideration I think no man have such a power ambler over his own property to  dispose of it so as to defeat his creditor unless for consideration it be the  motive of the giver not the knowledge of the acceptor that be to weigh the  statute extend to all case except where there be good consideration and good  fide the stat of Elizabeth c do not make void voluntary settlement against  creditor but mere declare that a fraudulent deed against they shall be void  see Holloway v Millard mad blood have be hold not to be a good consideration I  have no doubt but that this voluntary gift proceed from affection get the  better of justice the transaction smell of craft and experiment to give they a  advantage which they will not have have if he have pay it they in part of  their legacy for then they must have refund it be do secret and pendent light  but his lordship declare that as the unmarried daughter be both donee and  legatee of Godfrey they be entitle to retain in part of their legacy subject  to the provision of the former decree and that there shall be a abatement in  proportion see Mr Eden report see tine case Rep Lord townsend v Wyndham Ves  Copis v Middleton mad Fitzer v Fitzer atk tailor v Jones ib matthews v fever  Cox Jones v marsh can t Talb see Peat v Powell ante ambler er p note Mr  Wilbraham seem to think that his lordship lie down the position too large and  therefore ask he in court for the information of the bar whether he do not  mean to confine it to the circumstance of this case that otherwise a parent  can not make any present whatsoever of ever so small value to his child  without its be liable to be take away infavour of creditor to which his  lordship say that the fraudulent intent be to be collect from the magnitude  and value of the gift