Spirett  V.  Willows,  11  Jur.,  N.  S.  70.  In  this  case  Lord
Westbury,  L.  C,  observed,  that  if  the  debt  of  the  creditor  by


As  regards  Creditors.  273

■whom  the  settlement  is  impeached  existed  at  the  date  of  the
settlement,  and  it  was  shown  that  the  remedy  of  the  creditor
was  defeated  or  delayed  by  the  existence  of  the  settlement,  it
was  immaterial  whether  the  debtor  was  or  was  not  solvent
after  making  the  settlement.  But  that  if  a  voluntary  settle-
ment or  deed  of  gift  were  impeached  by  subsequent  creditors
whose  debts  had  not  been  contracted  at  the  date  of  the  set-
tlement, then  it  was  necessary  to  show  either  that  the  settlor
made  the  settlement  with  express  intent  to  delay,  hinder  or
defraud  creditors,  or  that  after  the  settlement  the  settlor  had
not  sufficient  means  or  reasonable  expectation  of  being  able
to  pay  his  then  existing  debts ;  that  was  to  say,  was  reduced
to  a  state  of  insolvency,  in  which  case  the  law  infers  that
the  settlement  was  made  with  intent  to  delay,  hinder  or  de-
fraud creditors,  and  it  was,  therefore,  fraudulent  and  void.
lb.  p.  70 — 1.  These  observations  must,  however,  it  would
seem,  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  facts  of  the  case  in
which  they  were  made.  See  Freeman  v.  Pope,  L.  R.,  5
Ch.  538.  In  this  case  it  was  held,  that  a  settlement  not
founded  upon  valuable  consideration  may  be  set  aside  with-
out proof  of  actual  intention  to  defeat  or  delay  creditors,  if
the  circumstances  are  of  such  a  nature  that  the  settlement
must  necessarily  have  that  effect.
Although  the  settlor  may  be  indebted,  yet  if  the  debts  are  Debts  secured.
