'BROOKS VS. DENT. fig5

sent to the sale of bier maiden real estate uipon the condition
thiat the proceed» thereof should be invested i-n. other real estate
for her benefit. This tract called "EHeslie," the answer alleges,
was purchased by her husband in conformity with said agree-
ment, and should be now regarded as her estate, or subject to
her claim, as a preferred creditor.

The case shows that a parcel of land inherited by Mrs.
Brawner, was sold and conveyed by her and her husband to
the purchaser, in April, 1826, foe the sum of $4500; and
there is parol evidence ia the record to show that Brawner, her
husband, had been several times heard to say, that he had paid
for "Elleslie in part with her money received from the sale of
the land of his wife, and that it was intended for her in lieu of
the land which had belonged to her, and which bad been sold
as aforesaid," and in a clause of his will there is a declaration
to the same effect.

The plea of limitations was also made to these claims, and
the statute of frauds relied, upon as a defence to the one upon
open account.

The Chancellor, after stating the facts, said :]

THE CHANCELLOR:

The case presents, and there have been discussed at the bar,
one or two questions of considerable interest, and upon these
the opinion of the court will be briefly expressed.

The question first to be considered, is, how far this alleged
agreement between husband and wife, supposing the proof of-
fered to establish it to be sufficient for that purpose, and to pro-
ceed from an exceptionable source, can be set up in prejudice
of the claims of creditors who became such subsequently to
its date ?

It is not doubted that a husband and wife may contract for a
bwwfide and valuable consideration, for a transfer of property
from him to her, as was said by the Chancellor in Livingston
vs. Lvvingsto»i, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep., 537; see also Atherly on
Marriage Settlements, 160, 161. Nor can it be questioned,
that a settlement upon the wife after marriage, in pursuance of