1880. separate property of Mahala Triplett, to satisfy debts due from said Mahala to the plaintiff. Septem'r & uls. V. Romine's als. It appears that Mrs. Triplett, before her marriage, Triplett was the owner of property in her own right, settled upon her for her separate use by a former husband, adm'r & and that she purchased two small tracts of land, for which she executed her bonds for the purchase money, and that the plaintiff Romine, who was her brother, lent her several sums of money to enable her to pay for the land. And by his bill he sought to subject this land as her separate estate to the payment of his debt. And in July, 1866, he had a lis pendens of the suit recorded in the clerk's office of the county court of Warren. At the March term, 1866, Triplett and wife answered the bill. The facts as to the purchase of the land, as stated in the bill, is not denied, and a part of plaintiffs' debt is admitted, and some credits are claimed. And in conclusion they say the plaintiffs' bill is radically defective in substance and form, and that he is not entitled to any decree. And at this term there was an order for an account of plaintiffs' claim, but it was not taken. At the March term, 1868, of the court the death of Mahala Triplett was suggested, and her estate was committed to the sheriff of Warren county. And at the March term, 1872, there was another order for an account of plaintiffs' claim against Mrs. Triplett's And on the 7th of December, 1872, the commissioner returned his report fixing the amount due the plaintiff of principal and interest up to January, 1873, at $2,644.50. To this report the defendant Triplett filed exceptions, to a few items of charge and the failure to allow some credits. At the February term, 1874, Elizabeth Triplett and others applied for leave to file their petition in the cause, which was opposed by the administrator of 1880. Romine; but the objection was overruled, and the petition was allowed to be filed. In their petition they state that Mahala Ashby and William H. Triplett were married in May, 1865, in the county of Warren: That in contemplation of said marriage, and in consideration thereof, they on the 16th of May, 1865, entered into a marriage contract, by which the said Mahala Ashby conveyed (among other things) two tracts of land to a trustee for the sole use and separate benefit and use of the said Mahala and William H. Triplett and his children by a former wife, namely-setting out the names of the petitioners. And they filed the deed with their petition. They state that on the 27th of May, 1865, the said deed was proved as to Mahala Ashby, by the subscribing witnesses thereto, before the then clerk of the county court of Warren, in the clerk's office thereof, and was at the same time acknowledged by the said William H. Triplett, and was left in the possession of the clerk to be recorded, but the clerk through some inadvertence omitted to endorse upon the deed that it had been proved as to Mahala Ashby by the subscribing witnesses; and his term of office expired without his having made any such endorsement. It was again proved by the witnesses and admitted to record on the 26th of March, 1867. They claim that being jointly with their father the owners of the real estate by virtue of said deed sought to be subjected by the plaintiff to the payment of his claims, they do not admit its liability to said debt, or if it be liable to it or any part of it, still petitioners are deeply interested therein, and ought to be parties to the suit; and this they pray may be done; that Brown the administrator may be summoned to answer their petition; and that they may have all proper relief. Septem'r Triplett & als. V. Romine's adm'r & als. Term. & als. 1880. The administrator Brown, was ordered to be sumSeptem'r moned to answer the petition, and filed his answer. He refers to the time this suit had been pending, the Triplett answer of Triplett and wife, which makes no allusion V. to the deed, and no mention of it had been made until Romine's the filing of the petition. He admits the subscribing witnesses to the deed were at the clerk's office and made the oath mentioned in the clerk's certificate of that date. adm'r & als.. He further says that the right of the petitioners even as stated by themselves, is not supported by any valuable consideration. They are volunteers according to their own showing; and no conveyance which Mrs. Ashby might have made in their favor can relieve her property from liability for a debt contracted by her with A. Romine long before said writing was executed, and which is yet owing and unpaid. And he insisted that the deed was not duly recorded until after Romine had brought his suit and docketed his lis pendens. He objects to being delayed in order to make the petitioners parties, and hopes that the matter brought forward in the petition will be determined thereon. The cause came on to be heard on the 17th of October, 1878, when the court held that the marriage contract between Mahala Ashby and William H. Triplett, was not admitted to record until the institution of this suit, and the record of the lis pendens, and that it was therefore void as to the debts due Romine from said Mahala Ashby. And correcting the account stated by the commissioner in some small particulars, decreed that Romine should recover the sum of $2,704.42 with interest on $1,007.71, part thereof from October 1, 1878, till paid, and costs. And if it was not paid before the 1st of March, 1879, commissioners named were directed to sell the land, &c. And thereupon Elizabeth Triplett and the other petitioners applied to a judge of this court for an appeal and supersedeas; 1880. which was awarded. Giles Cook and J. Y. Menifee, for the appellants. R. Parker and McCormick, for the appellees. BURKS, J. delivered the opinion of the court. It is essential to the success of the appellants in this cause, that they shall show themselves to be purchasers for value of the land in controversy, or of some estate, or interest in it. They do not pretend that they ever paid or contracted to pay any money or other thing of value for it. It was the separate property of Mrs. Mahala Ashby, and she, in contemplation of marriage with the appellee William H. Triplett, settled it to the use of herself and her intended husband and his children by a former marriage. The appellant Granville Triplett and the female appellants are these children, and their claim is, that the marriage contemplated having taken place is a sufficient consideration to support the settlement to their use against a creditor of Mrs. Ashby, whose debt existed at and before the date of the settlement and though not a specific lien was then chargeable in equity upon the property settled. That marriage is a consideration deemed valuable in law is an elementary principle, and, in ante-nuptial settlements untainted with fraud, that this consideration is sufficient to sustain against existing creditors of the settler, limitations of estates to the husband and wife and issue of the marriage, is well settled. "In marriage contracts," says Lord Cottenham in Hill v. Gomme, 5 Myl. & Cr. 254, "the children of the marriage are not only objects of, but quasi parties to it"; Septem'r Triplett & als. V. Romine's adm'r & als. Term. 1880. and it has been held by this court, that the consideraSeptem'r tion extends to children born out of wedlock, who are legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents Triplett and recognition. Herring & als. v. Wickham & wife & als., 29 Gratt. 628; Coutts & als. v. Greenhow, 2 Munf. Romine's 363. &als. V. adm'r & als. Whether the consideration extends to estates limited to collateral relatives is a question upon which there have been and still seem to be much diversity of opinion and conflict in the decisions. Adjudged cases both ways are numerous. We do not propose to review them. Many of them are referred to in the elementary works which we have examined and the principles deduced by the authors are there given. See 2 Lomax Dig. 335, 336 (side pages); Fry on Specific Performance $$ 108, 109, 110, 111; Kerr on Fraud and Mistake 204, 232; Sugden V. & P. (8th Amer. ed.) ch. 22, § 1, 463 (top), 716 (bottom), note 1; Schonler's Dom. Rel. 264; Bump. on Fraud. Convey. (2d ed.), 292, 293; and cases cited by these authors. In reference to the cases generally, it is to be observed that while some of them are adjudications upon the relative rights and interests of creditors and purchasers on the one side and parties claiming under settlements on the other, yet by far the greater number seem to be cases of suits for the specific performance of articles among claimants under the articles, in which the rights of creditors were not drawn in question. Speaking of the last-named class more particularly, Mr. Justice Nelson, in Neres v. Scott & als., 9 How. (U. S. R.) 209, after adverting to the absence of uniformity and consistency in the decisions, says, "The result of all the cases, I think, will show, that if, from the cir cumstances under which the marriage articles were entered into by the parties, or as collected from the |