17. Smith v. Mclntyre, - C. C. A. -, 95 Fed. 585; Hinson v. Williamson, 74 Ala. 280; Crouse v. Peterson, 130 Cal. 169, 80 Am. St. Rep. 89, 62 Pac. 475; Chandler v. Delaplaine, 4 Del. Ch. 503; Harding's Adm'r v. Weisiger, 33 Ky. Law Rep. 170, 109 S. W. 890; Putnam v. Story, 132 Mass. 205; Schroeder v. Wilcox, 39 Neb. 136; ing the power, or the statute, otherwise declares.25 Accordingly, where a power is given to two or more executors, all who are living and acting must unite in the execution.26 But an executor who refuses to qualify need not join.27 Nor need one who is removed from office, or renounces after qualifying.28 But if the will shows that the testator intended to give a personal discretion to the particular individuals named by him as executors, to be exercised by them jointly, all must ordinarily join in the execution of the power, though one refuses or renounces the office.29

57 N. W. 1031; In re Manning's Estate, 85 Neb. 60, 122 N. W. 711; Mott v. Ackerman, 92 N. Y. 552; Jackman v. Delafield, 85 Pa. 381; Bailey v. Brown, 9 R. I. 79; Hardin v. Hassell, 118 Tenn. 143, 100 S. W. 720.

18. Venable v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co., 74 Md. 187, 21 Atl. 704; May v. Brewster, 187

Mass. 524, 73 N. E. 546; Cohea v. Johnson, 69 Miss. 46, 13 So. 40; Francisco v. Wingfleld, 161 Mo. 542; 61 S. W. 842; Coann v. Culver, 188 N. Y. 9, 80 N. E. 362; Giberson v. Giberson, 43 N. J. Eq. 116, 10 Atl. 403. See Pratt v. Stewart, 49 Conn. 339; In re Adams, 32 R. I. 41, 78 Atl. 524.

19. Davis v. Hill, 112 Ind. 423, 14 N. E. 468; Boland v. Tiernay, 118 Iowa, 59, 91 N. W. 836; Schroeder v. Wilcox, 39 Neb. 136, 57 N. W. 1031; Green v. Russell, 103 Mich. 638, 61 N. W. 885: Pottn v. Breneman 182 Pa. 295. 37 Atl. 1002.

20. Varick v. Smith, 67 N. J. Eq. 1, 58 Atl. 168; Gehr v. McDowell, 206 Pa. 100.

R. P.-68 does not seem that the administrator could ordinarily exercise the power.21 In one state a power to sell land is not regarded as properly a power that can be given to the executor as such, and consequently it is not exercisable by the administrator.22

Occasionally, when the will authorized, expressly or by implication, a sale of realty, but failed to name any executor or other person to make the sale, an administrator with the will annexed has been regarded as authorized to make it,23 but a contrary view has also been asserted.24

As a power of sale is implied in the executor by reason of the directions for distribution by him of the proceeds of sale,24a so a power of sale has occasionally been implied in favor of the administrator with the will annexed who may be appointed.24b Some courts have, however, refused to imply such a power in favor of an administrator.24c

- (b) In case of joint donees. As a general rule, where a power is given to two or more donees, they must all execute the power, unless the instrument creat21. Giberson v.Giberson, 43 N. J. Eq. 116, 10 Atl. 403; Drum-mond v. Jones, 44 N. J. Eq. 53, 13 Atl. 611.

22. Hall v. Irwin, 7 111. 176; Nicoll v. Scott, 99 111. 529; Bige-low v. Cady, 171 111. 229, 63 Am. St. Rep. 230, 48 N. E. 974; Per-rine v. Reed, 155 111. App. 213.

23. Davis v. Hoo\er, 112 Ind. 423, 14 N. E. 468; Hester v. Hester, 37 N. C. 339.

24. Hall v. Irwin, 7 111. 176.

And a statute specifically giving the administrator with the will annexed the same power to sell as is given by the will to the executor has been regarded as not giving the administrator power to sell when no executor was named in the will. Stoughton v. Lis-comb, 39 R. I. 489, 98 Atl. 183; McElroy v. McElroy, 110 Tenn. 137, 73 S. W. 105. Contra, Hester v. Hester, 37 N. C. 329.

24a. Ante, Sec. 319, note 55.

24b. Davis v. Hoover, 112 Ind. 423, 14 N. E. 468; Putnam v. Story, 132 Mass. 205; Schroeder v. Wilcox, 39 Neb. 136, 57 N. W. 1031.

24c. In re Clay and Tetley, 16 Ch. D. 3; Bauermeister v. Silver, 98 Md. 418, 56 Atl. 825; Stoughton v. Liscomb, 39 R. I. 489, 98 \tl. 183; McElroy v. McElroy, 110 Tenn. 137, 73 S. W. 105.

25. Chance, Powers, Sec. 603; 1 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 294, 2-491; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1062; Union Trust Co. v. Sheldon, 84 Conn. 494, SO Atl. 758.

26. Chance, Powers, Sec. 606; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 532, 9 L. Ed. 522; Wilson v. Mason, 158 111. 304, 49 Am. St. Rep. 162, 42 N. E. 134; Gould v. Mather, 104 Mass. 283; Noel v. Harvey, 29 Miss. 72; Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1, 14 Johns, 562; Wilder v. Ranney, 95 N. Y. 7; Deneale v. Morgan's Ex'rs, 5 Call (Va.) 407; Crowley v. Hicks, 72 Wis. 539, 40 N. W. 151. See Shelton v. Homer, 5 Metc. (Ky.) 462.

27. Stewart v. Mathews, 19 Fla. 752; Wolfe v. Hines, 93 Ga. 329, 20 S. E. 322; Ely v. Dix, 118 111. 477, 9 N. E. 62; Putnam Free School Trustees v. Fisher, 30 Me. 523; Warden v. Richards, 11 Gray. (Mass.) 277; Phillips v. Stewart, 59 Mo. 491; Corlies v. Little, 14 N. J. Law 373; Denton v. Clark, 36 N. J. Eq. 534; Meakings v. Cromwell, 5 N. Y. 136; Heron v. Hoffner, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 393;

Chanet v. Villeponteux, 3 McCord (S. C.) 29; Robertson v. Gaines. 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 367; Wright v. Dunn, 73 Tex. 293, 11 S. W. 330. In Pennsylvania a formal lenunciation is necessary. Neel v. Beach, 92 Pa. St. 221.

St. 21 Hen. VIII. c. 4 (A. D. 1529), providing that, if any of the executors refused to serve, all sales directed by the will should be validly made by those accepting the charge. Sugden, Powers, 125. There is a similar statute in some states, while in others the policy of the statute is adopted without any enactment.

28. Weimar v. Fath, 43 N. J. Law, 1; Clinefelter v. Ayres, 16 111. 329; Gould v. Mather, 104

Mass. 283; In re Bull, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 334. So, by force of statute. Weimar v. Fath, 43 N. J. Law, 1; Clark v. Denton, 36 N. J. Eq. 419; Wells v. Lewis, 4 Metc. (Ky.) 269.

Nor need one join who is originally disqualified to act. Lip-pincott v. Wikoff, 54 X. J. Eq. 107, 33 Atl. 305.

29. Tarver v. Haines, 55 Ala.

On the same principle, joint trustees, if living, must all unite in the exercise of the power,30 unless one disclaims the trust, in which case the remaining trustee or trustees may act.31

- Death of joint donee. In the case of a power coupled with an interest, that is, when a power is given to trustees or executors, who are also given the legal title, since, upon the death of one, the estate or interest survives and is vested in the survivor or survivors, the power also survives, unless a contrary intention appears,32 while, if the power is a mere naked power, either in executors or others, it will terminate upon the death of one of the donees, unless a contrary intention is shown by the language of the instrument creating the power.33

503; Franklin v. Osgood, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 21; Clay v. Hart, 7 Dana (Ky.) 8; Bartlett v. Sutherland, 24 Miss. 395; Perrin v. Lep-per, 72 Mich. 454, 40 N. W. 859. Contra, Wardwell v. McDowell, 31 111. 364; McDowell v. Gray, 29 Pa. 211; Johnson v. Bowden, 37 Tex. 621.

30. 2 Perry, Trusts, Sec.Sec. 493, 499; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1280; Lancashire v. Lancashire, 2 Phil. Ch. 664; Boston Franklinite Co. v. Condit, 19 N. J. Eq. 394; Wilbur v. Almy, 12 How. (U. S.) 180; Pennylvania Co. for Ins. on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Bauerle, 143 111. 459, 33 N. E. 166; Chapin v. First Universalist Soc, 8 Gray (Mass.) 580; Morville v. Fowle, 144 Mass. 109.

31. Lewin, Trusts, 758; 2 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 502; Cooke v. Crawford, 13 Sim. 96; Atzinger v. Berger, 151 Ky. 800, 152 S. W. 571.

32. 2 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 505; Wallace v. Foxwell, 250 111. 616, 95 N. E. 985; Gutman v. Buckler, 69 Md. 7, 13 Atl. 635; Breden-burg v. Bardin, 36 S. Car. 197, 15 S. E. 372; Dillard v. Dillard, 97 Va. 434, 34 S. E. 60. See Hadley v. Hadley, 147 Ind. 423, 46 N. E. 823; O'Brien v. Battle, 98 Ga. 766, 25 S. E. 780.

33. Co. Litt. 112b, 113a, 181b; Lewin, Trusts, 763; 2 Perry, Trusts, Sec.Sec. 499, 505; Lane v. Debenham, 11 Hare, 188; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 532, 564, 9 L. Ed. 522; Robinson v. Allison, 74 Ala. 254; Golder v. Bress-ler, 105 111. 419; Muldrow's Heirs v. Fox's Heirs, 2 Dana (Ky.) 79; Putnam Free School Trustees v. Fisher, 30 Me. 523; Gutman v. Buckler, 69 Md. 7, 13 Atl. 635; Parker v. Sears, 117 Mass. 513; Compton v. McMahan, 19 Mo. App. 494; Dolan v. Brown, 81 N. J. Eq. 262, 86 Atl. 935; Conklin v. EgerTo determine whether, in the case of a naked power, there is such an intention that it shall survive, is frequently difficult, There is no such intention, it is presumed, when a power is conferred, by their proper names, on two or more persons who are not executors or trustees.34 But if the power is given to persons in the character of executors rather than as individuals, it appearing that it is as holders of the office that the execution of the power is intrusted to them, it may be exercised by the survivor,35 and the power will, it seems, be regarded as so given when it is in aid of the administration and settlement of the estate, as a power to sell for the payment of debts and legacies, or for the sake of creating a common fund composed of the personalty and the proceeds of the realty.36

A statute sometimes provides that a surviving executor or trustee may exercise the powers originally given to the executors or trustees jointly;37 but even ton's Adm'r, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 430; Robertson v. Gaines, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 367. Compare Steele v. Cassell, 173 Ky. 817, 191 S. W. 640.

34. Co. Litt. 113a, Hargrave's note; Sugden, Powers, 128; Monteflore v. Browne, 7 H. L. Cas. 261, 267; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 532, 564; Marks v. Tar-ver, 59 Ala. 335; Glover v. Still-son, 56 Conn. 316.

35. Co. Litt. 113a, Hargrave's note; Sugden, Powers, 128; Houell v. Barnes, Cro. Car. 382; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 532, 564, 9 L. Ed. 522; Mastin v. Barnard, 33 Ga. 520; Putnam Free School Trustees v. Fisher, 30 Me. 523; Bradford v. Monks, 132 Mass. 405; Gaines v. Fender. S2 Mo. 497; Weimar v. Fath, 43

N. J. Law 1; Zebach's Lessee v. Smith, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 69; In re Murphy's Estate, 184 Pa. St. 310, 63 Am. St. Rep. 802, 39 Atl. 70; Dick v. Harby, 48 S. C. 516, 28 S. E. 900; Fitzgerald v. Standish i02 Tenn. 383, 52 S. W. 294. See Brown v. Doherty, 185 N. Y. 383, 78 N. E. 147, 113 Am. St. Rep. 915.

36. 2 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 499, and note; 2 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 339. See Zebach's Lessee v. Smith, 3 Bin. (Pa.) 69; Chandler v. Rider, 102 Mass. 268; Jackson v. Ferris, 15 Johns, (N. Y.) 346.

37. See Ely v. Dix, 118 111. 477, 9 N. E. 62; Simpson v. Simpson, 93 N. C. 373; Cobb v. Biddle, 14 Pa. 444; Illinois Steel Co. v. Kon-kel, 146 Wis. 556, 131 N. W. 842 then the power will not, it seems, be exercisable after the death of one, if it was intended to rest in the joint personal discretion of the persons named as executors or trustees,38. or if it was given to them in their individual rather than in their official character.39 If a power is given to several persons as a class, as "my sons" or "my trustees," without naming them, it can, it is said, be exercised by the survivors so long as more than one remains.40