case sir thomas smith bar peter Wilbraham and whether his wife all plaintiff  dame abigail smith widow richard lister and Frances pate his wife sir Charles  holt bar all defendant die Mercury of the eighth month in court lord  commissioner Rawlinson and Hutchins Eq can ab pl S c grandfather be tenant for  life remainder to his first son in tail remainder over with power to charge  the estate with pound per and do by deed charge the premise with pound per and  for four year to commence from his death in trust to raise pound part to be  pay to a and the other part to the plaintiff b and die the son pay a what be  due to he and he deliver up the deed and they be suppress the son take the  profit for four year and more and leaves a daughter his heir at law and leaves  no personal asset the daughter enter on the estate the land shall be liable in  her hand to pay the money due to the plaintiff with interest though the term  for year that be to secure the money be expire and though the person be dead  that receive those profit and shall have pay the money in question this cause  come now to be reheard upon the defendant petition who conceive themselves  aggrieve by the decree make upon the hear of the cause by the late lord  commissioner Vernon chancery case er p the case be that upon the marriage of  sir Thomas smith with dame mary his wife be the grandfather of the defendant  Frances pate smith now wife of the defendant Lister by settlement on his  marriage assure the manor and lordship of hough Weston cum Charleton grash and  great Shavington in Com cestr to the use of himself for life remainder to dame  mary his wife for her jointure remainder to the first son in tail with other  remainder over Vernon chancery case provide that the say sir Thomas shall have  power by any deed or write attest by two witness to grant a annuity or  rentcharge not exceed two hundred and fifty pound out of all the say manor and  premise or any part thereof to any per on for any term not exceed four year to  commence after the death of sir Thomas and dame mary sir Thomas pursuant to  the power by indenture July grant a annuity of two hundred and fifty pound per  and to sir Robert holt for four year to commence after his death upon trust to  dispose thereof as he by deed or will shall direct or appoint sir Thomas  afterward by deedpoll appoint one hundred and fifty pound of the say money to  be expend in his funeral and one hundred and fifty pound in a monument to be  erect for he in coventgarden church and give several sum to sir Robert and his  lady who be his daughter and their child and distribute the rest among the  plaintiff and those they represent in April sir Thomas die and upon his  decease the premise come to sir Thomas the son who prevail with sir Robert  holt to deliver up the indenture of rentcharge and to join in a fine and deed  to lead the use thereof whereby sir Thomas the son become seize in fee of the  premise and in lieu of the say indenture of rentcharge deliver up as aforesaid  sir Thomas and his trustee make a mortgage to sir John Bridgman and Humphrey  Jennings Esq be person nominate by sir Robert holt for a term of seven year  defeasable on payment of the say one thousand pound by several annual payment  therein mention after this sir Robert holt have satisfaction make to he for  the sum Payable to himself his Vernon chancery case wife and child and  thereupon the indenture of rentcharge the deedpoll for distribution and the  subsequent mortgage for seven year be suppress and hush up sir Thomas smith  the son enjoy the profit during his life and upon his decease the premise  descend and come to his only daughter and heiress the defendant Frances pate  smith now the wife of Lister who have ever since take the profit and the  defendant dame Abigail be executrix of sir Thomas the son her late husband but  have not asset the plaintiff bill be for that as much as the deed have be thus  conceal from they and sir Thomas the son and heir have receive the profit  which ought to have be apply to have satisfy their demand that therefore the  defendant dame Abigail may either pay they out of the asset if any she have or  that the land may stand charge the defendant dame Abigail insist that she have  not asset and the defendant the heir insist that if there be such deed ut  above which she do not admit that yet the profit which ought to have satisfy  the plaintiff demand be take by her father and not by her and the four year  for the rentcharge as also the subsequent term for seven year be both expire  before the land come to her possession therefore insist that the land ought  not to stand charge in her hand upon hear the cause it be full prove that  there be such several deed ut above and that the same have be suppress or  conceal by agreement between sir Robert holt and sir Thomas smith the court  thereupon declare that although the four year term for payment of the  rentcharge and the seven year mortgageterm be expire yet the plaintiff share  of the one thousand pound which remain Vernon chancery case unpay ought to  remain a charge on the say land and decree the same accord with interest at  pound per cent from April be the time when the mortgageterm for seven year  expire and cite sir Andrew Corbetts case where even at law if the heir have  take the profit which shall be apply for payment of debt the land shall still  remain charge therewith and now upon the rehear the lord commissioner confirm  the former decree in omnibus there be a entry of a order that July for a  rehear of this cause on the that October then next Reg lib b fol but no entry  of the rehear appear vide Harrison v cage ante p Vernon chancery case er p  Robinson v Dusgate Vernon chancery case er report date case Robinson versus  DUSGATE die loveliness of the eighth month in court Lord Hutchins master of  the roll Eq can ab pl S c a by will devise his land to b in fee pay pound  whereof pound to be at the disposal of his wife by her will to who she shall  think fit the wife die intestate her administrator shall have this pound the  property thereof be absolute vest in the wife the case be that I S by his will  devise his land to a for life remainder to b in fee he pay four hundred pound  whereof two hundred pound to be at the disposal of his wife in and by her last  will and testament to who she shall think fit to give the same the wife die  intestate the plaintiff take out administration and bring his bill to have  this two hundred pound for the defendant it be insist that the property be not  absolute vest in the wife but that she have only a power to dispose by will if  she think fit and not have make any disposition it become a lapse legacy and  the defendant not Chargeable with the payment of if and cite for that purpose  the case of pea and Stileman for mead in hob fol where the condition of a bind  be that the defendant mead shall pay twenty pound to such person or person as  Elizabeth Hanchett shall by her will and testament in write name and appoint  the same to be pay to and she die have make Vernon chancery case her will and  pea and Stileman executor but no express appointment and it be there adjudge  that a express appointment be necessary and that the plaintiff the executor as  assignee in law be not entitle thereunto but the court take it that the whole  interest and property of the two hundred pound vest in the wife and that she  have power to dispose of it as she think fit and therefore decree it for the  plaintiff as administrator of the wife with interest from the time of fill the  bill Reg lib b fol note the testator wife become lunatic about ten year after  the death of her husband and continue so till her death vide Tomlinson v  Dighton p wms where by Parker chief justice a clear distinction be take  between a power give with a particular description and limitation of the  estate and where general for in the former case the power be a distinct gift  and come in by way of addition but in the latter the whole as it be to be  dispose of must be suppose to be in those who be to dispose of it and this  distinction recognize and the doctrine settle on the authority of the  principal case in Maskeline v Maskeline Amb