Nevertheless, it might well be argued yet that the whole transaction was invalid as a fraudulent preference, but that was not done here.

Alderson v Temple (1768) 96 ER 384, Lord Mansfield held the Act applied, not just to fraudulent conveyances, but also the granting of fraudulent preferences.

He said a 'fraudulent preference by a debtor, if made on the eve of, and followed by, the bankruptcy of the debtor, has been void against his creditors; because it aims at preventing that equal distribution of assets among the creditors, which has always been the object of those laws.'