When, from the object for which a power is created, or from express direction in the instrument creating the power, it must be exercised within a certain time, any execution after that time will be void.223 While this is the rule, there are broad exceptions. The courts look for the main purpose of the donor, and when they conclude that the sale or other appointment directed by him was his main purpose, and that the time was inserted only as a matter of choice or preference, they have sustained an execution of the power at some other time than the one directed.224 When no time is prescribed for the execution of the power, it may be executed at any time which falls within the general purpose.225 Thus an execution at any time during the donee's life has been held good 226
Pomfret v. Ferring, 5 De Gex, M. & G. 775; Thornton v. Thornton, L. R. 20 Eq. 599; Ames v. Cadogan, 12 Ch. Div. 868; Nannock v. Horton, 7 Ves. 392; Napier v. Napier, 1 Sim. 28; Webb v. Honnor, 1 Jac. & W. 352; In re Goods of Merritt, Swab. & T. 112; In re Teape's Trusts, L. R, 1(3 Eq. 442.
221 Sir Edward Clere's Case, 6 Coke, 17b; Standen v. Standen, 2 Ves. Jr. 589; Maundrell v. Maundrell, 10 Ves. 246.
222 Hollman v. Tigges, 42 N. J. Eq. 127, 7 Atl. 347; Shearman's Adm'r v. Hicks, 14 Grat (Va.) 96; Doe v. Jones, 10 Barn. & C. 459; Jones v. Winwood, 8 Mees. & W. 653. For cases of lapse, see In re Harries' Trust, 1 Johns. Eng. Ch. 199; Chamberlain v. Hutchinson, 22 Beav. 444; In re Davies' Trusts. L. R. 13 Eq. 163; Eales v. Drake, 1 Ch. Div. 217.
223 Wilkinson v. Buist, 124 Pa. St. 253, 16 Atl. 856; Fidler v. Lash, 125 Pa. St 87, 17 Atl. 240; Harvey v. Brisbin, 50 Hun, 376, 3 N. Y. Supp. 676; Harmon v. Smith, 38 Fed. 482. So the power must not be exercised before the time directed. Booraem v. Wells, 19 N. J. Eq. 87; Henry v. Simpson, 19 Grant (N. C.) 522; Jackson v. Ligon, 3 Leigh (Va.) 161
224 Snell's Ex'rs v. Snell, 38 N. J. Eq. 119; Shaker's Appeal, 43 Pa. St. 83; Hale v. Hale, 137 Mass. 168; Hallum v. Silliman, 78 Tex. 347, 14 S. W. 797.
225 Moores v. Moores, 41 N. J. Law, 440; Cotton v. Burkelman, 142 N. Y. 160, 36 N. E. 890.
226 1 Sugd. Powers, 330; Richardson v. Sharpe, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 222; Bakewell v. Ogden, 2 Bush (Ky.) 265.