A power created by will takes effect without reference to the Statute of Uses, as does any executory devise, and consequently no declaration of uses is necessary to the validity of the power.50a A power created by conveyance inter vivos, on the other hand, in so far as it may affect the legal title, is, by the English law, invalid except by force of the Statute of Uses, and in order that this statute may operate, there must obviously be a use to be executed. Careful conveyancing would seem to call for the insertion in the conveyance or settlement of the declaration of a use, whenever it is sought to create a power of appointment of the legal title, except as any such necessity may be obviated by statute. Such is the usage in England, but in this country, with the looser methods of conveyancing in vogue, it might right in the life tenant to consume the principal involves a power to sell for the purpose of consumption.57

L. Ed. 589, affirming 2 Mason i'44, Fed. Cas. No. 6,889; Missouri v. Walker, 125 U. S. 339, 31 L. Ed 769; Gartland v. Nunn, 11 Ark. 720; Frink v. Roe, 70 Cal. 296, 11 Pac. 820; Hawley v. Smith, 45 Ind. 183; State v. Walker, 88 Mo. 279; Terwilliger v. Ontario, C. & S. R, Co., 149 N. Y. 86, 43 N. E. 432: Brown v. Skotland, 12 N. Dak. 445, 97 N. W. 543; Hartley's Appeal, 53 Pa. St. 212; Fisher v. Fair, 34 S. C. 203, 14 L. R. A. 333,

13 S. E. 470; Wilburn v. Spof-ford, 4 Sneed. (Tenn.) 698; Armstrong v. Moore, 59 Tex. 646; McNeill v. McNeill, 43 W. Va. 765, 28 S. E. 717.

50. As to the tangle of decisions in regard to what constitutes an interest for the purpose of this rule, see, 1 Mechem, Agency, Sec.Sec. 657-663.

50a. Sugden, Powers, 147; Far-well, Powers, 7.

Sec. 319] is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the property and the accomplishment of the purposes of the trust.63

Powers.

Apart from any question as to the necessity of the declaration of a use, in order to create a power of appointment or revocation by conveyance inter vivos, no particular form of words is necessary for the creation of a power, any expression, however informal, being sufficient, if it clearly indicates an intention to give or reserve a power. Frequently the power is given by words which express the effect of its exercise, in terms empowering the donee to sell, lease, or mortgage, as the case may be.51

- Implication of power. In the case of a trustee or executor appointed by will, a power of sale, though not expressly given, is frequently inferred from provisions in the will imposing on him duties which cannot be performed without a sale;52 as when he is required

50b. Ante Sec. 158.

50c. Ante Sec. 158.

50d. In Smith v. Smith, 46 N. C. 135, 59 Am. Dec. 581, a power of sale in a person not a trustee was held to be invalid, on the ground that a bargain and sale could not take effect in favor of unknown persons.

51. Sugden, Powers, 102, 104.

52. 2 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 766; Winston v. Jones, 6 Ala. 550; Heiseman v. Lowenstein, 113 Ark. 404, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 601, 169 S. W. 224; Stoff v. McGinn, 178 111. 46, 52 N. E. 1048; Putnam Free

R. P.-67 to divide testator's estate among persons named, and the estate is not divisible in kind,53 or he is required to pay debts, and there are no funds available for the purpose, except as they may be procured by a sale.54

In case the testator directs his estate to be sold, without declaring by whom the sale is to be made, if the proceeds of sale are distributable by the executor, a power in him to make the sale is implied.55

Not infrequently, when there is a gift for life, and a gift over at the life tenant's death of what remains, a power of sale in the life tenant has been implied, and especially has this been done when other language was used indicating an intention that the needs of the life tenant should be supplied from the property.56 A

School v. Fisher, 30 Me. 523; Ogle v. Reynolds, 75 Md. 145, 23 Atl. 137; Preston v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 116 Md. 211, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 975, 81 At. 523; Going v. Emery, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 107, 26 Am. Dec. 645; Corley v. Bishop, 101 Miss. 490, 58 So. 360; Lind-ley v. O'Reilly, 50 N. J. Law 636, 1 L. R. A. 79, 7 Am. St. Rep. 802, 15 Atl. 379; Vaughan v. Farmer, 90 N. Car. 607; Dearing v. Sel-vey, 50 W. Va. 4, 40 S. E. 478.

53. Stoff v. McGinn, 178 111. 46, 52 N. E. 1048; Corley v. Bishop, 101 Miss. 490, 58 So. 360; Corse v. Chapman, 153 N. Y. 466, 47 N. E. 812; Tomkins v. Miller, (N. J. Ch.) 27 Atl. 484; Schroeder v. Wilcox, 39 Neb. 136, 57 N. W. 1031. But see Barbot v. Thompson, 94 S. C. 3, 77 S. E. 716.

54. Brackett v. Middlesex Banking Co., 89 Conn. 645, 95 At. 12; Cherry v. Greene, 115 111. 591, 4 N. E. 257; Steinke v. Yetzer,

108 Iowa, 512, 79 N. W. 286; Porter v. Scofield, 55 Mo. 56; Brown v. Brown, 7 Ore. 285; 2 Story, Eq. Jur., Sec.Sec. 1064-1064b.

55. Sugden, Powers, 115 et seq.; 2 Woerner, Administration,

Sec. 339; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 532, 565, 9 L. Ed. 522; Blount v. Moore, 54 Ala. 360; Rankin v. Rankin, 36 111. 293, 87 Am. Dec. 205; Marrett v. Babb's Ex'r, 91 Ky. 88, 15 S. W. 4; Ogle v. Reynolds, 75 Md. 145, 23 Atl. 137; Hale v. Hale, 137 Mass. 168; Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 29 Mich. 78, 18 Am. Rep. 61; Clark v. Hornthal, 47 Miss. 434; Lip-pincott's Ex'r v. Lippincott, 19 N. J. Eq. 121; Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 252; Gay v. Grant, 101 N. C. 206, 8 S. E. 99, 106; Wood v. Hammond, 16 R. I. 98, 17 Atl. 324, 18 Atl. 198; Bedford v. Bedford, 110 Tenn. 204, 75 S. W. 1017.

56. Roberts v. Lewis, 153 U.

- As to trust property. A trustee is not regarded as having a power of sale merely because a sale would be advantageous to the persons interested in the trust. The power must be given either in express terms or as a matter of inference from language of the declaration of trust.58 In many jurisdictions, however, by force of statute, a court of equity may direct a sale of the property, on the application of any person interested therein, and notice to all persons so inS. 367, 38 L. Ed. 747; Smith v. Mclntyre, 37 C. C. A. 177. 95 Fed 585; Henderson v. Blackburn, 104 111. 227, 44 Am. Rep. 780; Dickson v. New York Biscuit Co., 211 111. 468, 71 N. E. 1058; Clark v. Midilesworth, 82 Ind. 240; Dor-sey v. Bryan, 170 Ky. 275, 185 S. W. 845; Paine v. Barnes 100 Mass. 470; Chamberlain v. Husel. 178 Mich. 1, 144 N. W. 549; Leg-gett v. Firth, 132 N. Y. 7, 29 N. E. 950; Seaward v. Davis, 198 N. Y. 415, 91 N. E. 1107; Bryan v. Bryan, 61 N. J. Eq. 45, 48 Atl. 341; Shaw v. Hussey, 41 Me. 497; McGuire v. Gallagher, 99 Me. 334, 59 Atl. 445; Johnson v. Battelle, 125 Mass. 453; Charnpney v. Bradford, 196 Mass. 259, 81 N. E. 993; Herring v. Williams, 153 N. C. 231, 138 Am. St. Rep. 69 S. E. 140; Morel v. Oakley, 253 Pa. 107, 97 Atl. 1029; Johnson v. Kirby, -Tex. Civ. -, 193 S. W. 1074. But see Pcndley v. Madison's Adm'r 83 Ala. 484, 3 So. 618; Benham v. Turkle, 17:: Iowa, 598. 153 N. W. 1017; Bradshaw v. Butler, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 531. 110 S. W. 420; Russell v. Werntz. 88 Md. 210, 14 Atl.

219; Foote v. Sanders, 72 Mo. 616. Taylor v. Bell, 158 Pa. 651, 28 Atl. 208, 38 Am. St. Rep. 857. Compare cases recited in Mr. Bigelow's note to 1 Jarman, Wills, pp. 407-410.

57. Chamberlain v. Husel, 178 Mich. 1, 144 N. W. 549; Kennedy v. Pittsburg & L. E. R Co., 216 Pa. 575, 65 Atl. 1102; Fassitt v. Seip, 240 Pa. 406, 87 Atl. 957. And see Weston v. Second Orthodox Congregational Church, 77 N. H. 576, 95 Atl. 14C

A power in the husband of testatrix to use property for the maintenance of children has been held to give a power of sale for that purpose. Ripley v. Armstrong, 159 N. C. 158, 74 S. E. 961.

58. Goad v. Montgomcry, 119 Cal. 552, 63 Am. St. Rep. 145, 51 Pac. 681; Hufbauer v. Jackson, 91 Ga. 298, 18 S. E. 159; Potter v. Ranlett, 116 Mich. 454, 74 N. W. 661; clark v. Fleischman, 81 Neb. 4 45. 116 N. W 290; Roe v. Vingut, 117 X. V. 204, 22 N. E. 933; Lohena v. Dupasseur, 56 Barb. (X. Y.) 266; Maxwell-v. Barringer, 110 N.

Even in the absence of any express provision to that effect in the declaration of trust, a trustee charged with the receipt and disposal of the income has been regarded as authorized to make leases for reasonable periods and at reasonable rents, this being necessary in order to obtain an income from the property.61 To what extent, if at all, a trustee has power, apart from any express provision in the trust instrument, to make a lease which will be valid and binding even after the termination of the trust, is a matter as to which the decisions are not entirely in accord.62 In one state a court of equity has been regarded as empowered to order the making of leases even in violation of the provisions of the trust instrument, when this

Oar. 76, 28 Am. St. Rep. 668, 14 S. E. 516; Serf v. Krebs, 239 Pa. 423, 86 Atl. 872. Bue see McDonald v. Shaw, 81 Ark. 235, 98 S. W. 952. 59. See e. g. Ansley v. Pace, 68 Ga. 403; Burge V. Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co., 112 Ky. 683, 66 S. W. 763; Lenow v. Ar-rington, 111 Tenn, 720, 69 S. W. 314.

60. Gavin y. Curtin, 171 111. 640, 40 L. R. A. 776, 49 N. E. 523; Johns v. Johns, 172 111. 472, 50 N. E. 337; Johnson v. Buck, 220 111. 226, 77 N. E. 163; Mayall v. Mayall, 63 Minn. 511, 65 N. W. 942; Rolfe & Rumford Asylum v. Lefebre, 69 N. H. 238, 45 Atl. 1087; Pennington v. Metropolitan Museum, 65 N. J. Eq. 11, 55 AW. 468; American Trust Co. v. Nicholson,

162 N. C. 257, 78 S. E 152; Rug-gles v. Tyson, 104 Wis. 500, 79 N. W. 766.

61. Naylor v. Arnitt, 1 Russ. & M. 501; Fitzpatrick v. Waring, 11 L. R. Ir. 35; Hutcheson v. Hod-nett, 115 Ga. 990, 42 S. E. 422; Hale v. Hale, 146 111. 227, 33 N. E. 858; City of Richmond v. Davis, 103 Ind. 449, 3 N. E. 130; In re Hubbell Trust, 135 Iowa, 637, 113 N. W. 512, 13 L R. A. N. S. 496, 14 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 640; Corse v. Corse, 144 N. Y. 569, 39 N. E. 630.

62. The cases are referred to and the matter discussed in editorial notes in 8 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 129, 20 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 75; 21 Id. at p. 211; 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 22a.

Sec. 320]

Powers.