disposal, by any deed or writing, or by her will, attested by two witnesses. She was not limited as to objects; and as to the mode, it was as ample a latitude as any one could have. It is a little hard to attempt to explain that it was not her estate: how could she have had it more than by the enjoyment during life, and the power of disposing to whatever person and in whatever manner she pleased, with the small addition of two witnesses? By her will she gives all her estate and effects. It is hard to say, that using that expression, she meant to distinguish, and not to include this, which was as absolutely her's, as any other part of her property. But the person who drew the will goes on with augmentative phrases, "of what nature or kind soever, and whether real or personal:" these words do not add much to the force of it, "which I shall be possessed of, interested in, or entitled to." It is admitted there would be no doubt if she had said, of which I have power to dispose. Those last words would not add much, after what she had said before. But take it according to the strict technical rule in Sir Edward Clere's case, that a general disposition will not dispose of what the party has only a power to dispose of, unless it is necessary to satisfy the words of the disposition. The testatrix had no other real estate. I am bound to satisfy all these words: upon the technical rule, I can satisfy them no other way: I cannot avoid supposing, what every one must be convinced she meant, that she made no difference between what she had from her husband, and her other property. On an appeal to the House of Lords, this decree 6 Bro. Parl. was affirmed. 33. The cases where a power has been held to be executed, under the general words of a will, are either Ca. 193. Andrews v. Langham v. 3 Ves. 467. A Power may be executed by several where the words of the will cannot be satisfied without its operating as an appointment; or where there is some description of, or allusion to, the property which is the subject of the power. For if the doctrine be carried any farther, a person having a power could never make a will, without being held to execute the power. 34. Although a power of appointment be directed to be executed by any deed or writing, yet it may be Assurances. executed by several acts and assurances; provided they have such a relation to each other that they may be considered as making together but one assurance. Leicester's 35. A person having a power to revoke by indenCase, 1 Vent. ture, executed a deed whereby he covenanted to levy a fine to other uses; and afterwards levied a fine ac 278. Herring v. 1 Vent. 368. Carth. 22. cordingly.-Lord Hale said, " Upon the close and nice putting of the case, this might seem to be no revocation, for it was clear that neither the deed nor the fine separately taken could revoke; but quæ non valent singula, juncta prosunt." And it was determined, that the deed and fine taken together operated as a good revocation. 36. Sir James Williams made a voluntary settlement, to the use of himself for life, remainder to his 2 Show. 199. brother in tail, reserving to himself a power of revo cation, by deed indented under his hand and seal. Some time after, Sir J. Williams levied a fine, and by a deed made between him, his brother, and others, bearing date a month after the fine was levied, recit ing the fine, it was declared, that at the time of levying the said fine, the agreement of all the parties was, that it should enure to the use of the said Sir J. Williams and his heirs. It was determined in the Exche quer Chamber, by six Judges against two, that this fine and declaration of uses were to be considered as one and the same conveyance; and operated as an execution of the power. rent Times. 37. Powers of revocation and appointment may be And at diffeexecuted at different times, over different parts of the estates that are subject to the power. Case, 38. C. Digges, in consideration of his marriage, Digges's covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for 1 Rep. 173. life, remainder to the use of his son in tail, with a proviso, that it should be lawful for him to revoke any of the uses or estates, and to limit new uses. Digges revoked the uses of part of the lands, and afterwards revoked the uses of another part. It was resolved, Sir R. Lee's that he might revoke part at one time, and part at another, and so of the residue, till he had revoked s. P. all. Case. l'And. 67. 2 Burr. 1136. 1 Black. R. Woolston, 281. 39. A power was given by will to a person," from Zouch v. time to time, by deed or deeds, writing or writings, to limit or appoint to the use of any woman or women, for and in lieu of a jointure, all or any part of the land, &c." The devisee, on his marriage, appointed part of the premises to the use of his wife, pursuant to his power. Afterwards the devisee, by another deed, reciting that he had got an additional portion by his wife, in consideration thereof, and as an additional jointure, appointed another part of the premises to the use of his wife. The question was, whether the devisee had not completely exhausted his power by the first appointment, or whether he had still sufficient power to make the second appoint ment. It was unanimously resolved, that the power was not exhausted by the first appointment, and therefore that the second appointment was good. 40. It is laid down by Lord Nottingham, that 1 Vern. 85. where a man has a power of appointing a fee, he may execute it at several times, and appoint an estate for 2 Term R. 725. An Appointment may be pro tanto. be life at one time, and the fee at another. And in a modern case Lord Kenyon said-" A power may executed at different times, if not fully executed at first; provided the party, in the whole execution, do not transgress the limits of the power, as in Zouch, v. Woolston." 41. An appointment may in some instances have a Revocation a partial effect, and only operate as a revocation pro tanto. Upon this principle it has been held, that where a person, having a power of revocation and appointment, mortgages the lands, such a mortgage only operates as a revocation pro tanto, because in 1 Vern. 97. equity the mortgagor still continues owner of the estate; a mortgage being considered as a pledge, Id. 141. 182. only for the money borrowed. Perkins v. Walker, Thorne v. Thorne, Fitzgerald v. 6 Bro. Parl. Where a Power is exceeded, the 42. But where a mortgage is made by an execution of a power, and there is also a complete disposition of the equity of redemption, there the revocation will be complete. 43. A person who had a power of revocation and appointment, conveyed the estate to trustees and their heirs, upon trust out of the rents and profits, or by mortgage or sale, to raise so much money as should be sufficient to pay all the debts mentioned in a schedule thereunto annexed; and after payment thereof, to pay the overplus, and reconvey such part as should be unsold, to the grantor, or such other person as he should appoint. It was determined that this deed operated as a complete revocation of the uses, and not as a revocation pro tanto and this decree was affirmed in the House of Lords. 44. Where a power is exceeded by an appointment, Excess only is either by a disposition of a larger interest than is warranted by the power, or to persons not objects of the power; the excess only is void: and the courts void. Parker v. Parker, infra. will support the execution, as far as the power Alexander v warrants. Alexander, 2 Ves. 640. Amb. 740. 45. A tenant for life on an estate on which were Campbell v. Leach, mines, with power to let leases in possession for 21 years, made a lease of the mines for 26 years; without reference to the power. This was held a good lease in equity for 21 years; and I conceive would now be held good at law. 46. Lands were limited to Shute Adams for life, remainder to Frances Adams his wife for life, remainder to the use of such child or children of the said Shute Adams and Frances his wife, and for such estate and estates, as they should jointly, or as the survivor, in case of no joint appointment, should by deed or will direct or appoint; and for want of such direction or appointment, to the use of the first and every other son of the said Shute Adams and Frances his wife, severally and successively in tail. Frances Adams survived her husband, and by deed reciting her power, appointed the premises to the use of Mary Shute Adams, her eldest surviving daughter, for life, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to her first and other sons in tail male, remainder to her daughters in tail general, remainder to Catherine Adams, the other daughter of Frances, for life, remainder to her sons and daughters in the same manner; remainder to the use of the right heirs of the said Frances for ever. Frances Adams died, leaving the said two daughters and one son. The case being referred by the Court of Chancery to the Court of King's Bench, that Court certified their opinion that though Frances Adams executed her power, which was confined to child or children, by limiting estates to her grandchildren, yet the same ought to prevail so far as her power extended, and Adams v. Adams, |