monies belonging to any trust whatsoever, or the major part of them (1), may pay the same, with the privity of the accountant-general of the Court of Chancery, into the Bank of England, to the account of such accountantgeneral in the matter of the trust, in trust to attend the orders of the court. Bank annuities, East India and South Sea stock, and government and parliamentary securities, held upon trust, may also be transferred or deposited in like manner. The trust is then administered by the court upon petition in a summary way, without a bill, unless the court direct any suit to be instituted (m). fraudulent trustees. A salutary act has recently been passed for the Punishment of punishment of fraudulent trustees, bankers, directors, and public officers (n). More recent acts empower Power to apply for the opinion any trustee, executor or administrator, by petition or of a judge. statement to be signed by counsel, to apply to any judge of the Court of Chancery, for his opinion, advice or direction on any question respecting the management or administration of the trust property (o). settlement of In some marriage settlements, in addition to the Covenants for settlement actually made, a covenant is inserted for the wife's future settlement of all such property as the intended wife shall property. become entitled to during the coverture or marriage. It sometimes happens that at the time when such covenant is entered into, the wife is, without being aware of it, entitled to other property, besides that actually settled. In such a case, the general rule is that the property, to which she is then entitled, is subject to the covenant, and ought to be settled, as well as that which she may subsequently acquire (p). But as the question is entirely (1) See stat. 12 & 13 Vict. c. 74. (m) Stat. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 96, 8. 2. (n) Stat. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 54. (0) Stat. 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. Covenants to settle husband's property. one of intention, if the property to which the wife is entitled appear to have been purposely omitted, it will not be bound by such a covenant (q). If the covenant to settle the wife's future property be entered into by the intended husband alone, the wife will not be bound to settle any future property to which she may become entitled for her separate use (r). Occasionally covenants are unadvisedly entered into by the intended husband to settle on his children, or to leave to them by his will, all the property that he may acquire during the coverture, or all his property generally (s). So a father may covenant, on the marriage of his daughter, to leave her as great a share in his property as to any of his other children (t). These covenants will be enforced in equity; but from their vague and uncertain character, they are likely to lead to much litigation. A covenant to settle property of a given value when no time is limited for its performance, creates no lien on any of the property of the covenantor (u). And it appears to be now settled, contrary to what was before supposed to be the law, that no lien is created whether a time for the performance of the covenant be specified or not (x). Beav. 177; Blythe v. Granville, (q) Hoare v. Hornby, 2 You. & (r) Douglas v. Congreve, 1 Keen, 410, 423; Travers v. Travers, 2 Beav. 179; Drury v. Scott, 4 You. & Coll. 264; Ramsden v. Smith, 2 Drew. 298; Hammond v. Hammond, 19 Beav. 29. See also Butcher v. Butcher, 14 Beav. 222; Cramer v. Moore, 3 Sma. & Giff. 141; Grey v. Stuart, 2 Giff. 398; Brooks v. Keith, 1 Drew. & S. 462; Coventry v. Coventry, 32 Beav. 612. (s) Lewis v. Madocks, 17 Ves. 48; Needham v. Smith, 4 Russ. 318; Needham v. Kirkman, 4 Barn. & Ald. 531; Hardey v. Green, 12 Beav. 182. (t) Willis v. Black, 4 Russ. 170; Clegg v. Clegg, 2 Russ. & My. 570; Eardley v. Owen, 10 Beav. 572; Jones v. How, 7 Hare, 267; 9 C. B. 1. (u) Freemoult v. Dedire, 1 P. Wms. 429; Berrington v. Evans, 3 You. & Coll. 384. (x) Mornington v. Keane, 2 De Gex & Jones, 292, explaining Roundell v. Brearey, 2 Vern. 482, and questioning Wellesley v. Wellesley, 4 My. & Cr. 561, 581. Marriage, as we have seen (y), is a valuable consider- Marriage settlement equally ation. Every settlement, therefore, made by parties of valid as a purfull age, previously to and in consideration of marriage, chase. or made subsequently to marriage in pursuance of written articles (z), stands on the footing of a purchase, and has equal validity. But a voluntary settlement is Voluntary setliable to be defeated by the creditors of the settlor, if he tlement void as against crewas so much indebted at the time as to bring the settle- ditors. ment within the provisions of the statute of the 13th of Elizabeth (a) already noticed (b), by which the alienation of goods and chattels made for the purpose of delaying, hindering or defrauding creditors, is rendered void as against them. For although by the phrase "goods and chattels" was intended only such personal property as could be taken by the sheriff under an execution on a judgment (c), yet as almost all kinds of personal property may now be taken in execution (d), or charged with the payment of judgment debts (e), all such property is now within the compass of the statute (f). The voluntary assignment of goods or chattels, or delivery or making over of bills, bonds, notes or other securities, or the voluntary transfer of any debts made by a person being at the time insolvent (g), is also void in the event of his bankruptcy (h). This provision appears to embrace all personal estate capable of assignment or transfer (i); but it does not extend to a gift of money (k). (f) See Edwards v. Cooper, 11 Q. B. 33; Barrack v. M'Culloch, 3 Kay & John. 110; Jenkyn v. Vaughan, 3 Drew. 419. (g) See Cutten v. Sanger, 2 You. & Jerv. 459. (h) Stat. 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 126, repealing stat. 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s. 73, to the same effect. (i) Brown v. Bellaris, 5 Mad. 53. (k) Ex parte Shortland, 7 Ves. 88; Kensington v. Chandler, 2 Voluntary settlement binding on the settlor. Settlement for settlor's own benefit revo Although a voluntary settlement may thus be defeated by creditors, yet, when once completed, it is binding on the settlor, who cannot by any means undo it (l). Thus, in one case (m), a maiden lady not immediately contemplating marriage, but thinking such an event possible, transferred a sum of stock into the names of trustees in trust for herself until she should marry, and, after her marriage, in trust for her separate use for her life, free from the control of any person or persons with whom she might intermarry, and, after her decease, upon trusts for the benefit of any such husband, and her child or children by any husband or husbands. She afterwards, being still unmarried, filed a bill in Chancery, praying that the settlement might be delivered up to her to be cancelled, and that the stock might be ordered to be re-transferred by the trustees. But the court held that she was bound by the settlement she had made, and was not entitled to any assistance to release her from it. If however the object of the settlor is merely his own benefit or convenience, the settlement will be revocable cable by him. by him at his pleasure. Thus where a man, without any communication with his creditors, puts property into the hands of trustees for the purpose of paying his debts, his object is said to be, not to benefit his creditors, but to benefit himself by the payment of his debts (n). He may accordingly revoke the trust thus created (o), so long as the creditors remain in ignorance Mau. & Selw. 36; Ex parte Sker- (1) Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Ves. (m) Bill v. Cureton, 2 My. & Keen, 403. See also Petre v. Espinasse, 2 My. & Keen, 496; M'Donnell v. Hesilrige, 16 Beav. 346; Donaldson v. Donaldson, 1 Kay, 711. (n) Per Sir C. Pepys, M. R., 2 My. & Keen, 511; cited by Wigram, V. C., in Hughes v. Stubbs, 1 Hare, 479. (0) Garrard v. Lord Lauder of it (p). This rule, however, though well established, seems to attribute to debtors a somewhat light estimation of the claims of their creditors; and there appears to be no disposition in the courts to extend it (q). tlements of personal estate against subse The statute of Elizabeth (r), by which voluntary set- Voluntary settlements of lands and other hereditaments are void as against subsequent purchasers for valuable censideration, not void though it extends to chattels real (s), does not apply to quent purpurely personal estate (t). A voluntary settlement of chasers. personal estate cannot therefore be defeated by a subsequent sale of the property by the settlor. Settlements of any definite and certain principal sum Stamps on of money, of any denomination or currency, whether settlements. British, foreign or colonial, or of any definite and certain share in the funds, or Bank, East India, or South Sea stock, or in the stock or funds of any other company or corporation, or in the stocks or funds of any foreign or colonial government, state, corporation or company whatsoever, are now liable to an ad valorem duty of one-fourth per cent., or five shillings per hundred pounds, on the amount of the money or the value of the stock or share settled, according to the table contained in the Stamp Act (u), with a progressive duty of ten dale, 3 Sim. 1; Acton v. Wood- (p) Browne v. Cavendish, 1 Jones & Lat. 606, 635; Griffith v. Ricketts, 7 Hare, 299, 307; Mackinnon v. Stewart, 1 Sim. N. C. 76, 89, 90; Harland v. Binks, 15 Q. B. 713; Smith v. Hurst, 10 Hare, 30. But see Cornthwaite v. Frith, 4 De Gex & Smale, 552. (q) See Wilding v. Richards, 1 Coll. 661; Simmonds v. Palles, 2 Jones & Lat. 489; Kirwan v. Daniel, 5 Hare, 493, 499-501. (r) Stat. 27 Eliz. c. 4; Princi- (8) Co. Litt. 3 b; 6 Rep. 72. (u) Stats. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, |