Dormer v. Thurland, 2 P. Wms. § 9. Husband and wife fettled the wife's eftate to the use of themselves for their lives, remainder to their first and other fons, in tail male; with a power 506. to the husband at any time during the joint lives of himself and his wife-" By his last will, or any writ ing purporting to be his laft will, under his hand and feal, attefted by three or more credible wit"neffes (if he should die before his wife without any *iffue between them then living) to charge the pre“mises with any fum or fums of money, not exceeding 2000 l., to be paid to fuch perfons, and in fuch "proportions as he should appoint.” There was no iffue of the marriage, and the huf band by his laft will, in writing under his hand, attested by three witneffes, but not fealed, reciting his power of charging the premises with 2000 l., difpofed of the fame among his own relations. One of the queftions in this cafe was, whether this will, not being fealed, was a good appointment of the 2000, within the power, Lord Chancellor King was of opinion, that the will being duly executed, was a good appointment: but directed for the fatisfaction of the parties, as it was a matter of law, that it fhould be referred to the judges of the King's Bench. And it was by them determined, that the will was void as a charge, for want of being fealed. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor, in this cafe, was founded on an idea that the words, under his Rofe v. Ewer, 2 Atk. 156. Vide Spranger v. Barnard, 2 Bro. Rep. 585. Where the particular Inftrument is fpecified, it muft be adopted. Darlington v. Pulteney, Cowp. Rep. 260. band and feal, referred only to the fentence immediately preceding, viz. or any writing purporting to be bis laft will, and not to the words, by his laft will, fo that the power might be executed, either by a will duly attested, according to the ftatute of frauds, which does not require a feal, or else by a writing purporting to be a will, under his hand and feal. But the Court of King's Bench was of opinion, that the words under hand and feal, referred to both the preceding fentences. And this conftruction has been adopted by Lord Hardwicke in a fimilar cafe, refpecting personal property. § 10. If the nature of the inftrument by which a power is directed to be executed, be fpecified, it must be adopted: and therefore a power to revoke by deed, cannot be executed by will. § 11. The Earl of Bath and Lord Pulteney his eldest son, joined in fuffering recoveries, and declared the uses thereof, to fuch perfons, as Lord Bath and Lord Pulteney, by any deed or deeds, fealed and delivered by them in the presence of two or more credible witneffes, fhould jointly appoint. And in cafe of the death of either of them, then as the furvivor of them, by any deed or deeds to be executed as aforefaid, fhould appoint. Lord Bath having furvived his fon, made his will duly executed, and sealed, and thereby devised a piece of ground comprised in one of the recoveries. And the question was, whether this will fhould operate as an execution of the power. A cafe A cafe having been fent by the Court of Chancery to the Court of King's Bench on this point, Lord Mansfield faid, the firft requifite which the power prefcribed was impoffible to be performed by will, which was, that it fhould be by joint deed of Lord Bath and his fon. It was true the furvivor had the fame power, but then it was emphatically referved to be executed by deed. Now the word deed, in the understanding of the law, had a technical fignification to which a will was in no refpect applicable. If any words had been thrown in, fuch as writing, inftrument, or other term of a general comprehenfive meaning, it might have been fair to have taken advantage of it, in favour of the intention; but there being no general words, nor any meritorious confideration, it was impoffible to fay, that a will was a deed, within the terms of this power. The Court of King's Bench certified that the was not duly executed by this will. power S 12. Although the courts of law have never deviated from the principle, that all the circumstances required by the person who creates the power, fhould be strictly pursued; yet in other refpects, they have proceeded with fufficient liberality in fupporting revocations. Thus, if a power be given generally, without any restrictions, as to the nature of the inftrument by which it is to be executed; or if words of a general nature only, fuch as writing or instrument be inferted, in fuch case be executed, either by a deed, or it may by a will. Kibbett v. Rofcommon v. Fowke, 6 Bro. Parl. Ca. 158. But they mult be properly executed, 1 P. Wms. 741. S 13. A perfon covenanted to ftand feifed to the use of himself for life, remainder to his eldest fon, and the heirs of his body; referving to himself a power "by writing, under his hand and feal, and by "him delivered in the prefence of three credible wit"neffes," to revoke the ufes. Afterwards the covenantor made his will, in writing, under his hand and feal, delivered in the prefence of four witneffes, and thereby devised the lands comprised in the deed of covenant to his youngest fon. It was refolved, that this will being a writing, figned, fealed, and delivered in the prefence of three credible witneffes, was a good revocation and appointment. S 14. A power was given to a woman, by any writ ing, under her hand and feal, attested by two or more credible witneffes, to revoke certain ufes, and by the fame or any other deed to limit new ones. She by will, under hand and feal, attefted by three witnesses, devifed the lands comprised in the power. It was determined by the Court of Common Pleas, in Ireland, and by the House of Lords of England, that this was a good execution of the power, the word "writing" being applicable to a will. S 15. Where a power is given generally to revoke ufes, and appoint new ones; or where a power is exprefsly given by deed or will, without prefcribing the manner in which either of them is to be executed, the inftrument inftrument is intended in law to be fuch a one as is proper for the difpofition of that, which is the fubject matter of the power. From which it follows, that a deed made in execution of a power must be fealed, and a will must be executed according to the statute of frauds and perjuries. § 16. Lands were conveyed to trustees and their heirs, to the use of them and their heirs, in truft (after a fum of money fhould be raised) to convey them to 7. S. and his heirs, or to fuch perfon or perfons, as he or they should appoint. 7. S. by a will, attefted by two witneffes only, devised the lands; it was contended that the will should operate as an appointment: the Lord Chancellor, however, decreed that it could not be deemed an appointment, because it was not executed according to the forms prescribed by the ftatute of frauds and perjuries. Wagstaff v. 258. S 17. But where no intereft paffes from the perfon Exception. who executes the power, directed to be executed by will, and he is merely to apportion that which another perfon has given; in fuch a cafe, as he is not the perfon who makes the charge, or affects the eftate, it is not neceffary that fuch a will fhould be executed according to the ftatute of frauds. § 18. Thomas Clough being tenant for life, under a inarriage fettlement, with remainder to his firft and other fons in tail, and having two fons John and Thomas, who were of age, they entered into articles, reciting the fettlement, and that there was no provifion Jones v. for |