Who are deemed Pur chafers under the 27 Eliz. 3 Rep. 83 a. 2 Atk. 601. 3 Rep. 838. be deemed fraudulent against purchasers, within this provifo in the act. § 44. With refpect to the perfons, who are deemed purchasers under the statute 27 Eliz., it was refolved in Twine's cafe, that no purchafer fhould avoid a precedent conveyance made by fraud and covin, but he who was a purchaser for money, or other valuable confideration; for, although in the preamble it is faid, for money or other good confiderations, and likewife in the body of the act, yet these words are to be intended only of valuable confideration. And this appeared by the claufe refpecting powers of revocation: for there it is faid, for money or other good confideration paid or given; where the word paid is referred to money, and given to good confideration, which excludes all confiderations of nature or blood, or the like; and were to be intended only of valuable confiderations, which might be given; and therefore he only, who made a purchase of land for a valuable confideration, was a purchaser under this ftatute. § 45. In Twine's cafe, Anderson faid, that a man, who was of fmall understanding, and not able to govern the lands which defcended to him, and being given to riot and disorder, by mediation of his friends, openly conveyed his lands to them, on truft and confidence that he fhould take the profits for his maintenance; and that he should not have power to waste and confume the fame. And afterwards he, being feduced by deceitful and covinous persons, for a small fum fum of money bargained and fold his lands, which were of great value. This bargain, although it was for money, was holden to be out of the ftatute; which was made against all fraud and deceit, and doth not help any purchafer who doth not come to the land for a good confideration, lawfully and without deceit. § 46. Where a perfon made a leafe, without receiving any fine, or referving any rent, it was refolved, that the leffee was not a purchaser within the statute 27 Eliz., and therefore could not avoid a preceding conveyance. § 47. It has been held, that marriage is a fufficient confideration to establish a second conveyance; and to render a prior one fraudulent and void, as against fuch fecond conveyance. But a conveyance to a man's children, or to his wife after marriage, by way of jointure, will not enable them to avoid a preceding conveyance. Upton v. Ballett, Douglas v. Waad, 1 Cha. Ca. 99% § 48. In the cafe of Upton v. Baffett, Beaumont, Ante f. 46. Juftice, fail, where one made a leafe for eighty years, without confideration, and afterwards conveyed the land to his wife for her jointure, after marriage: It was refolved, that this laft conveyance was voluntary, and without valuable confideration; and that the wife could not avoid the former leafe, by averring that it was fraudulent. $ 49. A mort Emery, Goodright v. Chapman v. § 49. A mortgagee is a purchaser within the statute 27 Eliz., as alfo a leffee at a rack rent; and therefore may avoid a preceding conveyance, as fraudulent against them, Mofes, ante. Doe v. § 50. Where the price is inadequate in a confiderable degree; or, where an apparent inadequacy of price is coupled with other circumstances, indicating a fraudulent collufion between the purchaser and the vendor, to avoid a preceding conveyance, a purchaser under fuch circumftances will not be entitled to the protection of this statute. § 51. William Watfon, being feifed in fee of certain copyholds, furrendered them in 1763, to the use of himself for life, remainder to his nephew Routledge in fee. Routledge married foon after; and, previously thereto, fhewed a copy of this furrender to his wife and her father. Ten years after the first surrender, William Watson furrendered the fame premises to the ufe of Hugh Watson, who was alfo his nephew, in fee: and by a deed of the fame date, executed by William Watson, reciting, that Hugh Watfon, upon the proposal and at the request of William Watfon, had come to an agreement with William Watfon for the abfolute purchase of the faid premises, for the fum of 200 l.; and reciting the faid furrender in pursuance thereof, William Watfon acknowledged the receit of the 200 l. from Hugh Watson, in full for the purchase of the premises, and covenanted with Hugh Watson, that he William Watson was was owner of the premises, and had good right to furrender the same to Hugh Watfon and his heirs. The 200% was proved to have been paid at the execution of the deed, and Hugh Watfon was admitted. It was also proved, that Hugh Watfon, before the furrender to him, knew of the former furrender; and that the premises, at the time of the furrender to Hugh Watson, were worth from 1800 l. to 2000 l. It was contended that the first surrender, being merely voluntary, was void under the ftatute 27 Eliz. c. 4. in respect to the fecond furrender; which was made to a bona fide purchafer, and for a valuable confideration. Lord Mansfield obferved, that the ftatute does not fay, that a voluntary settlement shall be void, but that a fraudulent fettlement fhall be void. There is no part of the act of parliament, which affects voluntary settlements eo nomine, unless they are fraudulent. To be fure, it is very difficult against fair honeft creditors, to fupport a voluntary fettlement. His Lordship then cited the cafe of Newstead v. Searles. On the other fide it was contended, that the first furrender, though made in confideration of love and affection only, was not fraudulent. Lord Mansfield:-One of the questions in this cafe is, whether the fettlement of 1763 is, under all the circumstances of this cafe, covinous and fraudulent, within the true intent and meaning of the statute VOL. IV. C c 27 Elize Intra. 27 Eliz. Now, in that ftatute, there is not a word that impeaches voluntary fettlements, but as fraudulent and covinous. The title of the ftatute is against covinous and fraudulent conveyances; where nominally one man paffes, and where nominally his eftate is conveyed to another; but where in fact it is agreed, that the grantor fhall keep it to his own use, and fo to answer the purposes of fraud. The enacting part confiders it in the fame light, and makes an exprefs provifion against fuch practices, as if they were criminal for it fays (fect. 3.) "That all parties to fuch "fraudulent grants, &c. who fhall attempt to defend "the fame, fhall forfeit one ycar's value of the land "fo purchased; and alfo, being lawfully convicted, "fhall fuffer fix months imprifonment." But no perfon, making a voluntary fettlement, by way of provifion for his family, was ever confidered in that criminal light. Where a fraudulent use is made of a fettlement, that indeed may be carried back to the time when the fraud commenced. A cuftom has prevailed, and been leant to extremely, to conftrue voluntary fettlements fraudulent against creditors; but, if the circumftances of the tranfaction fhew it was not fraudulent at the time, it is not within the meaning of the ftatute, though no money was paid; for inftance, what is generally done in marriage fettlements; if the father upon the marriage of his eldeft fon, in a fettlement upon him, limits remainders to half a dozen younger brothers, after the confideration of the marriage, thofe remainders are good within the meaning of the ftatute against any claim of creditors; 9 |