will gave a considerable estate to his grandson. It was proved that A. always kept the first settlement in his custody, and never published it, but it was found after his death amongst his waste papers; and the after deed was often mentioned by him, and he told the tenants that his eldest son was to be their landlord, after his death; yet the bill was dismissed, as to any relief against the first deed. The decree was affirmed in parliament. 51. A voluntary settlement is also good against a subsequent will, because neither of them are founded on a valuable consideration. scrap 52. A person who was cestui que trust of a term, by a little of paper at an ale-house, but under hand and seal, settled the term on the plaintiffs, to pay his debts; and gave them the surplus. them the surplus. Afterwards, being dissatisfied with this settlement, which he had delivered to a creditor, he devised the term, by will in writing, to his half brother, subject to the payment of his debts. The question was, whether the deed or will should prevail. Lord Nottingham held, that there was no colour for setting the deed aside, to make way for the will: that if a man improvidently binds himself up by a voluntary deed, and does not reserve a liberty to himself, by a power of revocation; the Court of Chancery will not loose the fetters he has put upon himself, but he must lie down under his own folly. For if For if you would relieve in such a case, you must consequently establish this proposition, viz. that a man can make no voluntary disposition of his estate, but only by his will ; which would be absurd. 53. In a subsequent case Lord Hardwicke held, that a voluntary deed, kept by a person, and never cancelled, could not be set aside by a subsequent will, Deeds made sideration. 54. There is a proviso in the stat. 13 Eliz. § 6. Provisoe in that the act shall not extend to any estate or interest favour of in lands made upon good consideration, and bond on good Confide lawfully conveyed or assured to any person, not having at the time of such conveyance any notice of such covin, fraud, or collusion. And in the stat. 27 Eliz. there is also a proviso, (S 4.) that the act shall not extend to make void any conveyance, assignment of lease, assurance, grant, charge, lease, estate, or interest, in any lands, &c. made upon good, consideration, bona fide, to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate. 55. In consequence of these provisoes, deeds made for a pecuniary consideration, or in consequence of any stipulations which are beneficial and valuable to the grantor, the word good in these provisoes meaning valuable, are not within these acts; and cannot therefore, be impeached, either by creditors, or subsequent purchasers, Mitton, 56. John Hammerton being seised in fee of an Roe v. estate charged with an annuity of 50 l. to his mother, 2 Wils. R. and having two brothers, and being about to be 356. married, prevailed on his mother to relinquish her security upon the whole estate, and take a security upon part a settlement was made accordingly, by which the estate was limited to John for life, remainder to his first and other sons by that marriage in tail male, remainder to the next brother in tail male, remainder over. And the question was, whether the remainder to the next brother of John was volun. tary. The Court held that it was not voluntary, because the mother must be presumed to have stipulated for the limitation to her second son, as the price of her relinquishing her security upon the whole estate, and taking a new security upon part. Settlements before Marriage. 57. Marriage being considered as a valuable consideration, deeds made previous to, and in consideration of an intended marriage, have been always Bovy's Case. held good within these provisoes, and not impeachable by creditors, or subsequent purchasers. Plowd. 58. 1 Vent. 193. Kirk v. Clark, 275 58. A person having an estate in reversion in a Prec. in Cha. copyhold, surrendered it to his eldest son in tail, in order that his son, coming in as a purchaser, should pay a smaller fine. Afterwards the father, on a treaty of marriage between his son and B., told B.'s friends that this copyhold was so settled; and the marriage was had, and a portion of 2,000l. paid with B. Some time after, the father settled the copyhold on a second wife. Lord Cowper decreed that the surrender to the son was good; for though it was at first voluntary, yet upon the treaty of the marriage it was a principal inducement, therefore became valuable; and ought to be considered as if it had then been surrendered to the son. 1Ab. Eq.354.59. Though a settlement be executed after marriage, yet if it be made in pursuance of an agreement entered into before marriage; or in consideration of an additional portion; it will be as good as if made before marriage. Jones v. 60. The defendant's father, some time after marriage, in consideration of an additional portion of 100 paid by his wife's mother, settled an estate of 100l. a year on himself for life, remainder to his first and other sons, &c.; and the mother of the defendant's father, having an interest in the estate, joined with him in the conveyance. Thirteen years after, the father mortgaged the estate to the plaintiff, with the usual covenants, and died. Lord Talbot said, the question was, whether this was a voluntary conveyance or not. And it would be very hard to call this a fraudulent settlement, since it was in consideration of a marriage had, and of an additional portion paid by the wife's relations ; which could not be called voluntary against a mortgage made thirteen years after. v. Jones, 1 Atk. 188. 61. R. Williams made a settlement, in considera- Brown tion of a marriage already had, and of a portion of 1,000l. paid to him by his wife's brother: the husband became a bankrupt, and the question was, whether this settlement was good against his creditors. Lord Hardwicke said, it was admitted, if a settlement was made before marriage, though without a portion, it was good; for marriage itself was a consideration. And it was equally good, if made after marriage, provided it was upon payment of money, as a portion; or an additional sum of money, or even an agreement to pay money, if the money was afterwards paid, pursuant to the agreement. This was allowed both in law and equity to be sufficient to make it a good and valuable settlement. Decreed a good settlement against the creditors. 62. In a subsequent case Lord Hardwicke said, Stileman v that a settlement, though made after marriage, yet 2 Atk. 477. Ashdown, being in consideration of a portion which, for any Ramsden thing that appeared, was paid at the time, could not v. Hilton, be impeached by subsequent creditors. 63. Where a wife joins with her husband in destroying the settlement made on her marriage, and a new settlement is made, such new settlement will be good; though a better provision is made for the wife and children than was contained in the original settlement. 2 Ves. 304, 64. Sir R. Bell on his marriage settled certain Scott v. Bell, lands on himself for life, remainder to his wife for 2 Lev. 70. Stephens v, Olive, 2 Bro. R. 9. Cadogan v. How far the her jointure, remainder to the first and other sons of the marriage, &c. Sir R. Bell having afterwards contracted debts, and there being no issue, his wife joined him in a fine of the settled estates, and they were sold. Sir R. B. covenanted to stand seised of other estates to the same uses as those contained in the settlement. It was resolved by Lord Hale and the other Judges, that the second settlement was good, and valid against subsequent creditors; for the old settlement being destroyed, and the new one made the same day, an agreement by the husband to make the new settlement, in consideration of the wife's having joined in the fine, to destroy the old settlement, would be presumed. And this considera. tion should extend to all the limitations in the new settlement; although the estates comprised in the new settlement were nearly double the value of those contained in the old one. 65. Lord Kenyon, when M. R., held that where a husband, after marriage, conveyed an estate to trustees, for the separate use of his wife, the cove. nants by the trustees to indemnify the husband against the debts which the wife might contract after the separation, was a valuable consideration; and therefore that the settlement, though made after the debt due to the plaintiff was contracted, was good against him. 66. It was held in a modern case that a settlement, made before marriage, in consideration of the mar riage, and of a considerable marriage portion, by a person who was indebted at the time, was good against creditors. 67. In the case of settlements made before mar riage, there has been a considerable difference of riage extends, opinion respecting the extent to which the considera. |