A power which is in terms to be exercised only upon the occurrence of

186, 23 S. W. 1162; Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Arnold, - Tex. Civ. App. -, 139 S. W. 917.

66. In re Mills, 34 Ch. D. 186. See Wooster v. Cooper, 59 N. J. Eq. 204, 224, 45 Atl. 381.

67. 1 Vict. c. 26, Sec. 24 (anno 1837).

68. 1 Vict. c. 26, Sec. 27; Farwell, Powers, 256.

69. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1659; 4 Sharswood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 62. See Herbert's Guardian v. Herbert's Ex'r, 85 Ky. 134; Payne v. Johnson's Ex'rs, 95 Ky. 175, 24 S. W. 238, 609. Lockwood v. Mildoberger, 159 N.

Y. 181, 53 N. E. 803; In re Howell's Estate, 185 Pa. St. 350, 39 Atl. 966; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Dunnell, 34 R. I. 394, 83 Atl. 858, 84 Atl. 740; Machir v. Funk, 90 Va. 284, 18 S. E. 197.

70. Amory v. Meredith, 7 Allen (Mass.) 397; Stone v. Forbes, 189 Mass. 163, 75 N. E. 141; Howland v. Parker, 200 Mass. 204, 16 Ann. Cas. 201, 86 N. E. 287; Emery v. Haven, 67 X. H. 503, 35 Atl. 940; Johnston v. Knight, 117 N. C. 122, 23 S. E. 92.

71. See Blagge v. Miles, 1 Story, 426, Fed. Cas. No. 1,479; some specified event or stale of facts, cannot be validly exercised in case such event or slate of facts does not occur.72 And so it has been decided that;a power of sale to be exercised by an executor or trustee after the death or marriage of a life tenant named cannot be exercised unless such death or marriage has occurred.73 It has, however, also been asserted that if a power is given to a designated person to be executed upon a contingency, it may be executed before the contingency, and the execution will be regarded as valid in case the contingency subsequently occurs.74 "In each case it is a question of the construction of the instrument creating the power whether the existence of the power is conditional on the happening of;a contingency or the fulfilment of a condition, in which case it cannot be exercised at all until it comes into existence, or whether the power exists in any event, and can be exercised although the exercise of the power can have no operation unless and until the contingency happens or the condition is fulfilled."75

When a trustee or executor is given power to sell, even though the power is not otherwise intended to be

Funk v. Eggleston, 92 111. 515. 34 Am. Rep. 136; and other cases cited supra, this section, note 58. 72. Earle v. Barker, 11 H. L. Cas. 280; Henry v. Simpson, 19 Grant Ch. 522; Petit v. Flint & P. M. R; Co., 114 Mich. 362, 72 N. W. 238; Hampton v. Nicholson, 23 N. J. Eq. 423; Austin v. Oakes, 117 N. Y. 577, 23 N. E. 193; Thom v. Thorn, 101 Md. 444, 61 Atl. 193; Satterfield v. Tate, 132 Ga. 256, 64 S. E. 60; Loomis v. McClin-tock, 10 Watts. (Pa.) 274; Mc-Clintock v. Cower*. 49 Pa. St. 256. Compare Judevine's Ex'rs v. Judevine, 61 Vt. 587, 7 L. R. A. 517, 8 Atl. 778.

73. Want v. Stallibrass, L. R. 8 Exch. 175; Henry v. Simpson, 19 Grant Ch. 522; Dahoney v. Taylor, 79 Ky. 124; Booraem v. Wells, 19 N. J. Eq. 87; Davis v. Howcott, 21 N. C. 460; Gee v. Graves, 2 Head (Tenn.) 239; Jackson v. Ligon, 3 Leigh. (Va.) 161; Raper v. Sanders, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 60.

74. Sutherland v. Northmore, 1 Dick. 56; Logan v. Bell, 1 Com. B. 872; Wandesforde v. Carrick, 5 Ir. Rep. Eq. 486; Machir v. Funk, 90 Va. 284. 18 S. E. 197; Sugdeu, Powers, 262.

75. Farwell, Powers, 169.

If a power of sale is to be exercised only upon the request or with the assent of another person, a sale without such request or consent is invalid.79

A power to sell for a particular purpose, or when a sale is necessary for a particular purpose, cannot ordinarily be exercised for a different purpose, or when the necessity does not exist.80 And so the exercise of a

76. Sugden, Powers, 266; Kil-patrick v. Barron, 125 N. Y. 751; Want v. Stallibrass, L. R. 8 Exch. 175.

77. Truell v. Tysson, 21 Beav. 439; Snell's Ex'rs v. Snell, 38 N. J. Eq. 119; Armour v. Murray, 74 N. J. L. 351, 68 Atl. 164; Gast v. Porter, 13 Pa. St. 533; Knapp v. Nissley, 254 Pa. St. 379, 98 Atl. 1051. See Mauldin v. Mauldin, 101 S. Car. 1, 85 S. E. 60.

78. Want v. Stallibrass, L. R. 8 Exch. 175; Henry v. Simpson, 19 Grant Ch. 522; Davis v. How-cott, 21 N. C. 460; 'Jackson v. Ligon, 3 Leigh (Va.) 161; Raper v. Sanders, 21 Grat. (Va.) 60. And see Lewin, Trusts (10th Ed.) 492, and Sugden, Powers, 266, in which later work it is said that since the power cannot, by the terms of its creation, be exercised till the life tenant's death, the persons in whom the fee is vested till the exercise of the power must join, in order to confer title.

79. Sugden, Powers, 252; Batchelor v. Brereton, 112 U. S. 396, 28 L. Ed. 748; Bent-Otero Imp. Co. v. Whitehead, 25 Colo. 354, 71 Am. St. Rep. 140, 54 Pac. 1023; Augusta v. Radcliffe, 66 Ga. 469; Richardson v. Crooker, 7 Gray (Mass.) 190; Paine v. Barnes, 100 Mass. 470; Bates v. Leonard, 99 Mich. 296, 58 N. W. 311; Scheidt v. Crecilius, 94 Mo. 322, 4 Am. St. Rep. 384, 7 S. W. 412; Towles v. Fisher, 77 N. C. 437; Gordon v. Gordon, (Tenn. Ch. App.) 46 S. W. 357; Goebel v. Thieme, 85 Wis. 286, 55 N. W. 706.

80. Beers v. Narramore, 61 power to sell for the purpose of support has usually been, regarded as valid only in case there was a necessity of a sale in order to scenic money for that purpose.81 In some cases, however, the courts have shown a disposition to consider that when the donee of the power is the person whose support was in question, a bona fide exercise of discretion by him in this regard is conclusive as to the necessity of the sale.82 And occasionally in other cases when a power of sale was subject to a condition precedent of an indefinite charac-terter, as that the values of land in the neighborhood be such as to justify a sale, the question whether the condition was satisfied was regarded as a matter for the honest exercise of judgment by the donee of the power.83

A power in a trustee or executor to sell land for the payment of debts is obviously not properly exercised if there are no debts, or if they are paid or barred by the statute of limitations;84 but a purchaser is not,

Conn. 12, 22 Atl. 1061; Henderson v. Blackburn, 104 111. 227; Fleming v. Mills, 182 111. 464, 55 N. E. 373; Moale v. Cutting, 59 Md. 510; South Carolina R. Co. v. Toomer, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 270; Columbia Ave. Sav. Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co v. Lewis, 190 Pa. 558, 42 Atl. 1094. But see Crozier v. Hoyt, 97 111. 23.

81. Bartlett v. Buckland, 7S Conn. 517, 63 Atl. 350; Henderson v. Blackburn, 104 111. 227; Haines v. Brown, 114 Me. 320, 96 Atl. 228; Minot v. Presoott, 14 Mass. 495; Stevens v. Winship, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 318, 111 Am. Dec. 178; Morford v. Dieffenbacker, 54 Mich. 593, 20 N. W. 600; Scheidt v. Crecelius, 94 Mo. 322, 4 Am. St. Rep. 384, 7 S. W. 412; Reynolds v. Jones, - N. H. -, 97 Atl. 557.

82. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 149 Iowa, 321, 128 N. W. 380; Griffin v. Griffin, 141 111. 373, 31 N. E. 131; Paxton v. Bond, 12 Ky. Law Rep. 949, 15 S. W. 875; Hosman v. Willett, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 906, 107 S. W. 334; Richardson v. Richardson, 80 Me. 585, 16 Atl. 250; Coates v. Lunt, 210 Mass. 314, 96 N. E. 685; Spar-hawk v. Goldthwaite, 225 Mass. 414, 114 N. E. 718; Matthews v. Crashaw, 109 Tenn. 480, 72 S. W. 964, 97 Am. St. Rep. 854. See Reed v. Reed, 80 Conn. 401, 68 Atl. 819.

83. Jennings v. Teague, 14 S. Oar. 229; Staples v. Staples. 24 Gratt. (Va.) 225; Penniman v. Sanderson, 13 Allen (Mass.) 193 ("sale if expedient").

84. Griffin v. Griffin, 141 111.

R. P.-69 by the weight of authority, charged with notice of the nonexistence of debts, unless, it seems, the power is exercised after the lapse of so long a time as to raise a presumption that the debts have been paid.85