§ 11. Powers are, in general, only inferted in deeds which operate by tranfmutation of poffeffion, that is, in declarations of ufes of fines and recoveries, or in releases; for it is fomewhat doubtful, whether powers can be inferted in a bargain and fale, or covenant to ftand feifed, because, in thefe, a confideration is abfo In what Deeds in ferted. lutely neceffary; and powers are often given to raife Goldfb. 173. eftates without any confideration. § 12. In the creation of a power, there is no neceffity for any technical words, as it will be fufficient, if the intention of the party who creates the power, be clearly manifefted. § 13. Thus, where the words, " and if the faid A. B. fhall make any eftate in fee-fimple or fee-tail, "then the use shall be," &c. were inferted in a deed without mentioning what lands, it was refolved, that they should be intended of the lands comprised in the deed, and should be a fufficient creation of a power. S 14. So, if the words are," it fhall be lawful for Moo. 611. "B. to alter, change, &c. any use, and to limit "new-or that, after altering, changing, &c. faid "uses, the fine fhould be to the ufes newly limited." Leighton, 2 Vern. 377. § 15. A., on his marriage with B., conveyed lands to Epif. Oxon v. C. in truft for himself for life, remainder to B. for life, remainder to the heirs of their two bodies, remainder to A. in fee: provifo, that in default of iffue of the marriage, C. fhould convey to fuch uses as the furvivor should appoint. A. devised the land to D., and died without iffue. Tit. 16. c. 5. Lord Keeper Wright faid, that Lord Dyer's fcintilla juris 1.4. Beale v. Beale, remained in C., and though the provifo was unskilfully penned, yet it amounted to a power of revoking and limiting new uses. § 16. Where a perfon has a power to charge land with a certain fum of money, he may alfo charge it with the payment of the interest of fuch fum; for the intention is, to charge the land with the principal money, and that of courfe carries intereft, otherwife no one would lend the money. § 17. Where there was a power to charge lands IP.Wm.244 with portions for younger children, living at the father's death, a child in ventre fa mere was confidered within the power; for it may be well looked upon, in equity, to be living at the father's death, in ventre fa A Power of vocation, but I Cha. Ca. 242. Anon. I Stra. mere. § 18. Although a power of appointing new uses implies, in itself, a power of revoking the former uses, because, otherwife, the power of appointing new uses could not be effectuated; yet a power of revocation only, does not imply a power of appointing new ufes. This point is contradicted by Lord Keeper Finch. But Sir John Strange reports, that upon a trial at Bar in Eafter term 10 Geo. 1., the Court of King's Bench was of opinion, that a power of revocation alone did not enable a perfon to limit new ufes. If, upon fuch revocation, the perfon became seised in fee, he might difpofe of the lands by deed or will, but not by a new declaration of uses. § 19. A power $ 19. A power of appointment relating to the land, A Power of includes in itself a right to appoint, either absolutely, includes a Appointment serve a new or with a new power of revocation and appointment. Right to reBut if a perfon once executes a power of revocation Power. and appointment of new uses, over the whole eftate, his power is thereby completely exhausted, unless he referves to himself a new power of revocation and appointment. § 20. Sampfon Hele, being feifed in fee of the lands in question, conveyed them in 1684, by leafe and releafe and fine, to trustees, to the ufe of himself for life, remainder to the use of his fon for life, remainder over. In the release, there was a power given to Sampfon Hele to revoke the uses contained therein, and to limit other uses; and also, to revoke or alter fuch new limitations, and to declare other uses. Sampfan Hele did accordingly, by deed-poll, in 1687, reciting his power, revoke the ufes limited in the release of 1684, and appointed new uses. Sampfon Hele, by indenture in 1704, between him and trustees, reciting the release in 1684, and the power of revocation therein contained, and alfo the deed-poll of 1687, by which he had revoked the first ufes and limited new ones, did, according to the power and authority to him by the faid recited indenture, and the provifo therein specified and contained, given and referved, revoke the ufes limited by the deed-poll, and, by virtue of the faid power, appointed new ones. The Hele v. Bond, 1Ab. Eq.342. Prec. in Ch. 474 The question was, whether the deed-poll of 1687, and the uses thereby limited, were well revoked by the indenture of 1704. The Lord Chancellor declared, that this was a new cafe, and that he did not find any authority to warrant fuch a revocation; nor was there an instance in any of the authorities, which were infifted on, of any fuch power of revocation; but referred it to the Judges of the King's Bench for their opinion, whether the uses limited by the deed-poll of 1687 were well revoked by the indenture of 1704, by virtue of the power of revocation contained in the indenture of 1684. The Judges of the King's Bench certified their unanimous opinion to be," that the power of revocation "in the indenture of 1684, was fully executed by the "deed-poll of 1687; and that the farther power in "the indenture of 1684, to revoke any new appoint"ment of uses, was void in its creation as to fuch "ufes as should afterwards be duly limited, unless a power of revocation fhould be again expressly re"ferved, which was not in this cafe; and, conse"quently, that the ufes limited by the deed-poll of "1687, were not revoked or annulled by the inden "ture of 1704." The Lord Chancellor concurring in this opinion, decreed accordingly. On an appeal to the Houfe of Lords, the decree was affirmed with the concurrence of all the Judges. § 21. But Powers col § 21. But where a power is collateral to the land, Exceptionthe person to whom it is given cannot, upon the execution of it, reserve to himself a new power of re vocation. $ 22. Sir George Crooke having three daughters only, directed, by his will, that his lands fhould defcend and go amongst his daughters in fuch fhares and proportions as his wife by deed fhould direct and appoint, The wife made an appointment in pursuance of the power, in which, fhe referved to herself a power of revocation. The court faid, that as to the power of revocation, the cafe might be eased of that, for it was only an authority in the wife, and that being once executed, fhe could not referve fuch power to herself. lateral. Wall v. Thurborne, 1 Vern. 355 Powers may be given. § 23. Powers of revocation and appointment may To whom not only be referved to all those who are capable of difpofing of lands and tenements, but also to fome perfons who have not by the common law a difpofing power: for, whenever a perfon to whom a power is given, executes it, the appointee under the power does not derive any interest from the person who executes the power, he being confidered as a mere inftrument, to carry into execution the intent of the person who created the power; but is in immediately by and under the inftrument by which the power was created. § 24. A power may be given to an infant, but it Infants. must be expressly inferted in the deed, that the infant Vide 2 P. W 229. 671. may |