74. Allder v. Jones, 98 Md. 101, 56 Atl. 487; Monzo v. Woodhouse, 185 N. Y. 295, 78 N. E. 71, 6 L.

R. A. N. S. 746; Darling v. Edson, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 498.

75. Brant v. Virginia Coal, etc., Co., 93 U. S. 326; Henderson v. Blackburn, 104 111. 227, 44 Am. Rep. 780; Wardner v. Seventh Day Baptist Memorial Board, 232 111. 606, 83 N. E. 1077; In re Bauernschmidt's Estate, 97 Md. 35, 54 Atl. 637; Sheffield v. Grieg, 105 S. C. 219, 89 S. E. 664; Miller's Adm'r v. Pot-terfield, 86 Va. 867, 19 Am. St. Rep. 919, 11 S. E. 456.

76. Lewis v. Palmer, 46 Conn. 454; Bouton v. Doty. 69 Conn. 531, 37 Atl. 1064; Mayo v. Harrison, 134 Ga. 737, 68 S. E. 492; Shaw v. Hussey, 41 Me. 495; Warren v. Ingram, 96 Miss. 438, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 422, 51 So. 888; Griffin v. Nicholas, 224 Mo. 275, 123 S. W. 1063; Ricketts v. People's Bank of Rocheport, - Mo. , 196 S. W. 26; Cummings v. Shaw, 108 Mass. 159; Kent v. .Morrison, 153 Mass. 137, 26 N. E. 427, 10 L. R. A. 756, 25 Am. St.

Real Property.

[Sec. 320 effect of making the express gift of the power entirely nugatory, the latter view would appear dis-tinctly to be preferred.76a property does not incapacitate her to execute a power by will.89 Obviously, a power given to a woman "being sole," cannot be exercised while she is a feme covert.90

- Powers of sale and exchange. A power to sell land authorizes a conveyance of a fee simple estate in the land to the purchaser, and words of inheritance are not necessary in the creation of the power, even at common law.77

A power of sale is not, in itself, usually regarded as authorizing a mortgage of the land, in the absence of anything to show an intention that a mortgage may be created;78 and this is especially the case when it affirmatively appears that a sale was authorized merely

Rep. 616; Parks v. Robinson, 13S N. C. 269, 50 S. E. 649; Englerth v. Keller, 50 W. Va. 266, 40 S. E. 468.

76a. This is clearly shown in an exhaustive note in 15 Mich. Law Rev. 326-332, apparently by Professor Rood.

77. Sugden, Powers, 398; Chance, Powers, Sec. 1205; Hem-hauser v. Decker, 38 N. J. Eq. 426. It has been held that a life tenant with power of sale for purpose of her support could make sale reserving her life estate. Hoxie v. Finney, 147 Mass. 616, 18 N. E. 593; Priest v. McFar-land, 262 Mo. 229, 171 S. W. 62.

78. Heiseman v. Lowenstein, 113 Ark. 404, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 601, 69 S. W. 224; O'Brien v. Flint, 74 Conn. 502, 51 All. 547; Stokes v. Payne, 58 Miss. 614, 38 Am. Rep. 314; Hoyt v. Jaques, 729 Mass. 286; Price v. Courtney, 87 Mo. 337, 56 Am. Rep. 453; Parkhurst v. Trumbull, 130 Mich. 408, 90 N. W. 25; Arlington State

Bank v. Paulsen, 57 Neb. 717, 78 N. W. 303; Rutherford, L. & I. Co. v. Sannbrock, 60 N. J. Eq. 470, 46 Atl. 648, approving Ferry v. Laible, 31 N. J. Eq. 566; Bloomer v. Waldron, 3 Hill. (N. Y.) 361; Greene v. Greene, 19 R. I. 619, 35 Atl. 1042; Willis v. Smith, 66 Tex. 31, 17 S. W. 247. See note 31 N. J. Eq. 566.

A power to sell for the purpose of support has been construed not to authorize a mortgage to raise money for that purpose. O'Brien v. Flint, 74 Conn. 502, 51 Atl. 547; Hoyt v. Jaques, 129 Mass. 286; Dougherty v. Dougherty, 204 Mo. 228, 102 S. W. 1099. Contra, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 149 Iowa, 321, 128 N. W. 380. And see Trigg v. Trigg, (Mo.) 192 S. W. 1011. A power in a life tenant to sell and convey and use the proceeds as the donee of the power thinks proper has been held to involve a power to mortgage. Kent v. Morrison, 153 Mass. 137, 10 L. R. A. 756, 25

Sec. 320]

Powers.

A power of sale ordinarily authorizes a transfer of the property for a money consideration only, a sale as distinguished from an exchange.82 And a power of sale, or a power in terms to dispose of the land for a

Am. St. Rep. 616, 26 N. E. 427. And see, for a somewhat similar case, Funkhouser v. Porter, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 676, 107 S. W. 202. A power to sell and reinvest was held not to authorize a mortgage other than for purchase money. Stump v. Warfie'ld, 104 Md. 332, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 384, 118 Am. St. Rep. 434, 10 Ann. Cas. 249, 65 Atl. 346.

79. Butler v. Gazzam, 81 Ala. 491, 1 So. 16; McMillan v. Cox, 109 Ga. 42, 34 S. E. 341; Wilson v. Maryland Insur. Co., 60 Md. 150; Hannah v. Carnahan, 65 Mich. 601, 32 N. W. 835; Allen v. Ruddel, 51 S. Car. 366, 39 S. E. 198; Norris v. Woods, 89 Va. 873.

80. Sugden, Powers, 425; De-vaynes v. Robinson, 24 Beav. 86; Starr v. Moulton, 97 111. 525; Loebenthal v. Raleigh, 36 N. J. Eq. 169; Hoyt v. Jaques, 129 Mass. 169; Arlington State Bank v. Paulsen, 57 Neb. 717, 78 N. W. 303; Faulk v. DashieW, 62 Tex. 642, 50 Am. Rep. 542; Lueft v. Lueft, 129 Wis. 534, 7 L. R. A. N. S. 263, 9 A. & E. Cas. 109 N. W. 652.

81. So in Tennessee and Pennsylvania. Steifel v. Clark, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 470; Jackson v. Everett (Tenn.) 58 S. W. 340; Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 231; Zane v. Kennedy, 73 Pa. St. 182, 192; McCreary v. Bomberger, 151 Pa. 323, 31 Am. St. Rep. 760, 24 Atl. 1066. In England a power of sale generally authorizes a mortgage. Farwell, Powers, 627.

82. Perry, Trusts, Sec. 769; Woodward v. Jewell, 140 U. S. 247; Russell v. Russell, 36 N. Y. 581; City of Cleveland v. State Bank, 16 Ohio St. 236, 88 Am. Dec. 445; Tallent v. Fitzpiatrick, 253 Mo. 10, 161 S. W. 689. See Adair v. Brummer, 74 N. Y. 539. But aliter, perhaps, if the exchange is but a step in realizing on the property. Columbus Banking etc. Co. v. Humphries, 64 Miss. 258.

One having a power of sale cannot deprive himself of his discretion and suspend the power by giving an option, at least an option of any [length of time. Trogden v. Williams, 144 N. C. 192, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 867, 56 S. E. 865; Hitchcock v. Still, 168 Pa. 155, 47 Am. St. Rep. 880, 31 Atl. 1100; Clay v. Rufford, 5 De purpose which obviously looks to the receipt of a pecuniary consideration, as for the purpose of support, will not authorize a gift or a transfer for a nominal consideration.83 Occasionally, however, a power of sale has been regarded, under the circumstances, and on a construction of the language of the instrument creating the power, as authorizing a transfer in payment of an existing claim, or to pay the cost of litigation, this being to the advantage of the persons for whom the power was to be exercised.84

A power in trustees to sell and exchange has been held to involve a power to partition between the joint owners of the property,85 though a power of sale alone would not be sufficient for this purpose.86