Clere's Case, 6 Coke l?b; Scrope's Case, 10 Coke, 143; Blagge v. Miles, 1 Story, 426, Fed. Cas. No. 1,479; Middlebrooks v. Ferguson, 126 Ga. 232, 55 S. E. 34; Henriott v. Cood, 153 Ky. 418, 155 S. W. 761; Gaither v. Williams, 57 Md. 625; Papin v. Piednuir, 205 Mo. 521, 104 S. W. 63; Willier v. Cum-mings, 91 Neb. 571, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1377, 136 N. W. 559; Taylor v. Eatman, 92 N. C. 601; Bishop v. Remple, 11 Ohio St. 277; Kee-fer v. Schwartz, 47 Pa. St. 507; Scott v. Bryan, 194 Pa. St. 41, 45 Atl. 135; Matthews v. Cap-shaw, 109 Tenn. 480, !»7 Am. St. Rep. 854, 72 S. W. 964; Weir v. Smith, 62 Tex. 1; Hanna v. Lade-wig, 73 Tex. 37, 11 S. W. 133; Hood v. Haden, 82 Va. 588.

This rule has been applied in the case of a conveyance by an executor having power of sale to his vendee. Dick v. Harby, 48 S. C. 516; Matthews v. McDade, 72 Ala. 377; Terry v. Rodahan. 79 Ga. 278, 11 Am. St. Rep. 420; Faulk' v. Dashiell, 62 Tex. 642, 50 Am. Rep. 542.

It is provided by statute in some states that an instrument executed by the donee of the power which he would have no righl to execute except under the power shall be deemed a valid execution of the power. 4 Shars-wood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop.

If one has an estate in the land, and also a power over the same land, a devise by him of such land,60 or a conveyance thereof,61 will generally be considered as affecting his estate therein only, and not as executing the power. But though the donee of the power also has an estate in the land, a conveyance which calls for a larger estate than that which he has will usually be regarded as an execution of the power, especially in favor of a purchaser for value, to whom he is under an obligation to make the conveyance effectual for the full estate conveyed. Thus, the conveyance of an estate in fee simple by one who has a life estate, with power over the fee, will ordinarily be regarded as an execution of the power.62 In such a case the fact that

63; 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1659.

60. Clere's Cas. 6 Coke. 17b; Den v. Roake, 6 Bing. 475; Kee-fer v. Schwartz, 47 Pa. St. 503.

61. Daniel v. Felt, 100 Fed. 727; Walters v. Bristow, 77 Ark. 182, 113 Am. St. Rep. 136, 91 S. W. 305; Payne v. Johnson's Ex'rs, 95 Ky. 175; Bell v. Twilight, 22 N. H. 500; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Ship-man, 119 N. Y. 324, 24 N. E. 177; Towles v. Fisher, 77 N. C. 437; Herring v. Williams, 158 N. C. 1, 73 S. E. 218; Jones v. Wood, 16 Pa. St. 125; Robeno v. Mar-latt, 136 Pa. St. 35, 20 Atl. 512; Phillips v. Brown, 16 R, I. 279, 15 Atl. 90; Lardner v. Williams, 98 Wis. 514, 74 N. W. 346.

62. Sugden, Powers, 347; Warner v. Connecticut Life Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 357, 27 L. Ed. 962; Gind-rat v. Montgomery Gas-Light Co., 82 Ala. 596, 60 Am. Rep. 769, 2 So. 327; Lanigan v. Sweany, 53 Ark. 185, 13 S. W. 740; Goff v.

Pensenhafer, 190 111. 200, 60 N. E. 65; McMillan v. William Deer-ing & Co., 139 Ind. 70, 38 N. E. 98; Rinkenberger v. Meyer, 155 Ind. 152, 56 N. E. 913; Hall v. Preble, 68 Me. 100; Baird v. Boucher, 60 Miss. 326; Campbell v. Johnson, 65 Mo. 439, overruling Owen v. Switzer, 51 Mo. 729; Grace v. Perry, 197 Mo. 550, 7 Ann. Cas. 948, 95 S. W. 880; Bishop v. Remple, 11 Ohio St. 282; Rembert v. Vetoe, 89 S. C. 198, 71 S. E. 959 (semble); Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Jones, 103 Tenn. 245, 58 S. W. 219; Hanna v. Ladewig, 73 Tex. 37, 11 S. W. 133; Walke v. Moore, 95 Va. 729, 30 S. E. 374.

But a different view is suggested in New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Buice, 98 Ga. 795, 26 S. E. 84; Ridgely v. Cross, 83 Md. 161, 34 Atl. 469; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Shipman, 119 N. Y. 324, 24 N. E. 177; Towles v. Fisher, 77 N. C. 437; Scott v Bryan, 194 Pa. St. 41, 45

Sec. 324] exercised until after the death of one to whom a life estate is given, the power may nevertheless, it has been held, be exercised before the time named, if all the parties interested are sui juris and consent thereto; and this is consistent with the substantial purpose of the creator of the power.76 If the postponement of the time of sale is merely for the benefit of the life tenant, the latter's assent thereto will, it has been sometimes asserted, be sufficient to validate the sale,77 though in other cases the right to sell with the consent of the life tenant has been expressly negatived.78 the donee of the power believes that he is conveying his own property when he conveys a fee, and is not a-ware that he has a power merely as to the fee, is immaterial.63

Powers.

A devise in general terms, descriptive of land, such as "all my real estate," "all the residue of my real estate" or "all my land," has been regarded as involving an execution of a power over land, if the testator, at the date of the will, owned no land to which the language used by him could refer, the theory being that the testator must have intended by such language to exercise the power, since otherwise the devise would be devoid of effect.64 And conversely such a devise in general terms has, in the absence of statute, ordinarily been regarded as not effective as an execution of the power, when the testator owned land to which the devise could be referred.65 The

Atl. 135; Lardner v. Williams, 98 Wis. 514, 74 N. W. 346. And see Walters v. Bristow, 77 Ark. 182, 113 Am. St. Rep. 136, 191 S. W. 305.

63. Sugden, Powers, 348; Young v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 101 Tenn. 311; Terry v. Rodahan, 79 Ga. 278, 11 Am. St. Rep. 420; Allison v. Kurtz, 2 Watts (Pa.) 185.

64. Sugden, Powers, 318; Standen v. Standen, 2 Ves. Jr. 589; Denn v. Roake, 6 Bing. 475; Balls v. Dampman, 69 Md. 390, 1 L. R. A. 545, 16 Atl. 16; Smith v. Curtis, 29 N. J. Law 352; Jones v. Wood, 16 Pa. 42; Barbot v. Thompson, 94 S. Car. 3, 77 S. E. 716. A like rule has been held to apply to a bequest "of all my leasehold property," so as to make it effective as an appointment of leasehold property, Grant v. Lynam, 4 Russ. 292.

65. Denn v. Roake, 6 Bing. 475; Hoste v. Blackmail, 6 Madd. 190; Lewis v. Lewellyn, Turn. & R. 104; Grant v. Lynam, 4 Russ. 292; Hollister v. Shaw, 46 Conn. 248; Lane v. Lane, 4 Pennew. (Del.) 368, 64 L. R. A. 849, 103 Am. St. Rep. 122, 55 Atl. 184; Harvard College, President, etc. v. Balch, 171 111. 275, 49 N. E. 543; Patterson v. Wilson, 64 Md. 193, 1 Atl. 68; Burleigh v. Clough, 52 N. H. 267; Meeker v. Breitnall, 38 N. J. Eq. 345; Carraway v. Mosley, 152 N. C. 351, 67 S. E. 765; Bingham's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 345; Cotting v. De Sartiges, 17 R. I. 668, 16 L. R. A. 367, 24 Atl. 530; Mason v. Wheeler, 19 R. I. 21, 61 Am. St. Rep. 734, 31 Atl. 426; Bilderback v. Boyce, 14 S. C. 528; Arnold v. Southern Pine Lumber Co., 58 Tex. Civ. App.