1803. June 18. Time for shewing cause against conditional orders. TRINITY TERM, 1803. GENERAL RULE. THE LORD CHANCELLOR is this day pleased to order, that in future, in all cases where conditional orders are granted, if cause be not shewn upon the motion day next after the expiration of the time limited by such order, or a notice of shewing cause served, (which motion is to be entered with the register) that the register do give a certificate of no cause and it is further ordered by his lordship, that notices so entered with the register do have precedence of all other motions save injunction motions. Reg. Lib. (Mot.) lxxvi. 359. June 18. Personal in. GENERAL RULE. THE LORD CHANCELLOR is this day pleased to terrogatories to order, that in future in all cases where personal interrogabe settled by the master. tories for examinations before the masters are exhibited under the order of the court, that such interrogatories be settled and approved by the master, as of course, in case the party to be examined shall require the same. Reg. Lib. (Mot.) Ixxvi. 359. 1803. MATTER OF MEAGHAN, A BANKRUPT. July 1. A trader on receives 6001. a bond for trustee, the in terest payable to himself for life, if he shall continue solvent but in case insolvency, the of his death or interest to his wife for her life and the princi. pal among the children of the marriage. On bis bankruptcy, the claim of the trustee on be MR. HENCHY moved on the petition of the assignees, that the proof of a debt of 1,000l. made by John Parker his marriage as trustee in the marriage settlement of the bankrupt and his wife's porhis wife, might be expunged, on the ground of the provi- tion, and gives sions in the settlement being fraudulent as to creditors. By 1,004. to a marriage settlement dated 29th July 1797, made between the bankrupt of the first part, his then intended wife of the second part, and the trustee of the third part, it was agreed that 600l. part of the marriage portion of the wife, should be paid to the bankrupt upon his executing a bond and warrant in a penal sum of 2,000l. conditioned for payment of 1,000%. with lawful interest for the same within six months from the date thereof; and it was provided by the settlement that the said bond and warrant, and the money thereby secured should be held in trust from and after the solemnization of the marriage to pay and dispose of the interest thereof to the bankrupt for life, in case he should continue solvent; and in case of his becoming insolvent or in case of his death, then in trust to pay and dispose of such interest thereof should accrue due from such death or insolvency, to such persons and uses and in such proportions as the wife should notwithstanding her coverture appoint, to the intent that the same might not be subject to the debts of her husband; and in default of such appointment to the sole and separate use of the wife: and from and after the decease of the survivor, in case said bankrupt should continue solvent during his life, (but if not, then after the decease of the wife and the insolof the bankrupt) upon trust to pay the principal to and vency as half of the wife, for interest, allowed, as far as the 600% but not for the remaining 4001. 1803. MEAGHAN, a Bankrupt. amongst the children of the marriage, and in default of issue to the survivor of husband and wife. Mr. Huband on the part of the trustee, argued that this was not a fraudulent settlement, and cited Ex parte Groome, 1 Atk. 115, ibid. 113, 120, 8 T. R. 389,(a) 2 Bl. 1106; Wyllie v. Wilkes, Dougl. 501, 2 Ves. 450, and 1 Atk. 251. Mr. Henchy in reply mentioned the matter of Murphy, a Bankrupt, ante 44, and Ex parte Henecy, cited ante 46. Lord CHANCellor. This is a bond, which is a debt due, and nothing fraudu lent is suggested but one stipulation, namely, as to the interest in case of insolvency. In England, where a provision of this kind is confined to the property of the wife, it is considered fair; but when it goes beyond that and attaches on the property of the husband it is held to be fraudulent, because no bounds can be set to it: if a trader can make a provision of this sort to the amount of 1,000/. he may do so to the amount of 100,000l. and so may stipulate on his marriage to take all his property out of the hands of his creditors by charging it, contingently, with payment of interest for his wife and children, as a maintenance for them, though in effect a provision for himself. In this case the interest so far as the dividend on 600%. (the wife's fortune) must be paid to the separate use of the wife (a) Staines v. Plank. Vid. the passage cited ante, p. 46, and commented on by the Lord CHANCELLOR, p. 48. His Lordship now took occasion to observe that Lord KENYON merely meant to say that a debt of this description might be so framed as to be proveable on the insolvency: but that it was merely a dictum, not necessary to the decision of the case, and pronounced by Lord KENYON after his Lordship had been long out of the habits of practice in a court of equity. according to the settlement: but as to the dividend on the remaining 400/. it falls within all the cases. (a) "Let the proof of the debt of 1,000% in petition men"tioned stand, but declare that the trusts of the settlement, "so far as they give the interest of 4001. part of the said 66 1,000l. to the wife and children during the life of the "husband upon his becoming insolvent, ought to be deemed "fraudulent and void. And let the interest of the dividends 66 to be received on such debt to the extent of six-tenths "thereof only be paid to the trustee of the wife of said bankrupt to her own separate use for life. And let the "interest on the remaining four-tenths be paid to the as"signees during the life of said bankrupt and upon the "death of said bankrupt, living the wife, let the interest be "paid to the trustee of said wife for her life; and upon the “death of the said wife, living the husband, let the interest "be paid to the trustee for the benefit of the children, if "there shall be any, for the life of the husband: and up66 on the death of the survivor of husband and wife, let the "principal and interest be paid and applied for the benefit "of the children, if any, according to the settlement: and "if none, then let the principal be paid to the wife if she "shall survive the husband, and if the husband shall survive "then to the assignees, according to the trusts of the set"tlement." (a) Lockyer v. Savage, 2 Str. 947, 1803. MEAGHAN, a Bankrupt 1803. June 21, 23. A beneficial lease obtained under the influ ence of loans of money made or expected to lessee to the lessor, is a fraudulent eva sion of the sta tutes of usury, and an undue advantage taken of the les sor, and there fore void. The court settled ac count, where it has been signed on a security taken on the DREW v. POWER, THE bill stated that plaintiff, being tenant for life of his estates with a power to make leases thereof for three lives or thirty-one years at the best improved rent and without taking a fine, became very much embarrassed in his circumstances be made by the and several executions issued against his person and property: That about March 1789, he represented his situation to the defendant, who was married to his sister, and who was perfectly acquainted with the nature of his property: That he communicated to defendant his wish to raise money to pay off the most pressing of his debts, which defendant highly approved and urged him to execute, and when he found he had increased plaintiff's anxiety to extricate himself from his will not open a embarrassments, he told plaintiff that two denominations of his estate, called Poulagower and Knockavin would shortly be out of lease, and that if plaintiff would make him a lease thereof for three lives at the rent of 2001. sterl. per ann. he would, from the friendship he had for plaintiff, advance him money sufficient to pay off all his debts, and would in the course of three months pay off such as were most pressing. Induced by this prospect of being extricated from his difficulties, plaintiff promised the defendant to execute a lease agreeable to his proposal, and defendant shortly after began to make advances to plaintiff, principally by giving his own promissory notes payable at very long dates, and by bills drawn on different persons in favour of plaintiff, and continued to make advances of this nature until Nov. 1790; but these bills were drawn on mere nominal ac ceptors, and few of them solvent, so that when the bills. became due, plaintiff was obliged to apply for payment to foot of it, un- |