case in chancery sir joseph Douglas and his wife against William WAAD marriage  a good consideration to make the feme a purchaser James Waad the defendant  father have marry a first wife do in her lifetime many year before her death  by several fine and deed settle the several manor of Buttles and PaytonHall to  the use of himself for life remainder to his first and all his other son in  tail afterward the first wife die without issue then James Waad marry with the  daughter of Eltonhead but before marriage agree with Eltonhead that in  consideration of pound portion which Eltonhead be to pay her to settle her a  jointure of pound per Ann of which it appear in the case Buttles manor be to  be part but what the other land be that be to make up the pound per Ann do not  appear James Waad have issue by his second wife the defendant and die leave  the second wife who marry Douglas the plaintiff their bill be against the  defendant to have he decree to settle the jointure on the defendant mother and  to set aside the settlement make by James Waad against the jointress as  fraudulent when this case be first bring to hear there be no proof of payment  of the pound portion by Eltonhead it prove that Eltonhead maintain James Waad  and furnish he with money for other use and it be insist on the plaintiff part  that marriage be a good consideration to make the jointress a purchaser and it  be her father that be to pay the pound and not she and so she be clear a  purchaser if a man secure his purchasemoney it be payment and to this opinion  that she be a purchaser the Lord chancellor incline and the plaintiff counsel  sergeant Maynard and fountain insist that the jointress be a purchaser the  settlement be after the marriage of the first wife be fraudulent as to the  jointure which the second wife claim by the marriage agreement on the  defendant part it be insist the first conveyance be good and can be set aside  by the marriage agreement for it be not in the power of the father case in  chancery after the first settlement to avoid it and every voluntary conveyance  be not fraudulent the chancellor of Oxford case merry and Littleton case James  fraud be not to be presume and this conveyance be by fine and so notorious and  upon case in chancery er p record and there can not be any intention of fraud  as against the second wife and it be rare that this court take upon they to  judge a deed fraudulent to which it be reply fraud be only cognisable here and  be only proper here before the statute and every voluntary conveyance be  presume to be fraudulent unless he that claim by it can prove the contrary the  Lord chancellor incline the jointress be a purchaser and whether the deed be  fraudulent propose to have it try but after refer it to a case and a case be  state to the effect ut above with this more that there be a release give by  James Waad for the portion fever car the Cause come to be hear before the Lord  chancellor and baron turner at which time the court declare the marriage be a  good consideration to make the feme a purchaser and beside upon the release  for the portion it be clear she be a good purchaser and that all voluntary  conveyance be prima fancy to be look upon as fraudulent against purchaser  unless the contrary be make appear and so decree the settlement by James Waad  to be set aside as fraudulent the defendant bring a bill of review and assign  for error that it be not cognisable here whether a deed be fraudulent but that  be only triable at law and beside no colour of fraud against the jointress for  the deed as appear by the decree be make in the life of the first wife who  live ten year after and the second wife not then think on and the settlement  be by deed and fine ought not to be presume fraudulent without proof and it be  far assign for error that by the decree the settlement as to PaytonHall be to  be part of the jointure and she be not as appear any purchaser as to that and  so no reason to set aside the settlement as to PaytonHall under the notion of  the jointress be a purchaser for that it do not appear that that be within her  pretend purchase case in chancery to this bill of review the defendant  demurrer and insist that the decree be well ground and upon debate thereof  before the Lord chancellor and baron turner in TrinityVacation car the  demurrer as to the point above be allow but as to another particular touch the  mesne profit which point I have not state the plaintiff in the bill of review  be upon argue of the demurrer relieve and the decree so far explain that be to  say whereas by the decree the defendant be to answer and pay all the arrear of  the pound per Ann to the jointress since his father be death whereas it appear  by the decree that by a former decree of the court the mesne profit have be  apply first to the payment of Eltonheads debt and afterward be take by the  lady Waad and the defendant be neither charge as heir or executor to his  father nor have any asset to answer the arrear it be order that the defendant  shall be Chargeable only with so much arrear as he have receive out of the  land note the case of beard vers Nuthall vern a voluntary bind be give by the  husband after marriage to make a jointure on the wife he make a jointure  accord and the wife give up the bind after which the jointure be evict c it  decree that the jointure shall be make good out of the husband be personal  estate there be no other debt and that the deliver up of the bind by the wife  during the coverture shall not bind her case in chancery de boundary paschae  year king car h in cancellar the Lord keeper the master of the roll