case the countessdowager OF Coventry against the earl OF Coventry refer to  Blandford v Marlborough atk Wilson v Piggott Ves jun discuss in re Lambert  estate ir r where a defective execution of a power be help in equity S c Max  in Eq S c stram S c Peer wms S c comy S c I Eq Abr S c Eq Abr S c Mod Thomas  earl of Coventry be seize in fee of several manor land and tenement c demise  the same to trustee and their heir to the use of himself for life remainder to  his old son Gilbert for life with a power to settle a jointure on any wife he  shall marry not exceed five hundred pound ayear so as she bring a equivalent  fortune remainder to the heir male of the body of the say Gilbert remainder to  the present earl the now defendant and the heir male of the body with several  remainder over earl Thomas die and thereupon earl Gilbert be seize for life as  aforesaid modern report er p marry the plaintiff and in consideration of the  say marriage and of ten thousand pound portion which he have with her enter  into article by which he covenant c for himself and his heir to settle land  accord to this power or otherwise of the value of five hundred pound ayear on  her for jointure and have ask and be inform by his steward which of his land  be the most proper to be settle a draught of a settlement of land to that  value be draw and engross for he to sign which lie four year modern report and  be never execute by earl Gilbert who afterward be sudden take ill devise three  thousand pound to the plaintiff and all his plate jewel c and two hundred and  fifty pound ayear to be pay to her for life out of other land and die without  issuemale so that the say manor land and tenement come to the present earl the  now defendant against who the plaintiff the countessdowager exhibit a bill in  this court to have a specific execution of the say power and that she may  retain the land mention in the say settlement though not execute by earl  Gilbert in his lifetime and it be insist for her that this power give to earl  Gilbert though he have only a estate for life ought to be favourable construe  in a court of equity for wherever such a power be give to a tenant for life  who will have be seize in fee if it have not be for that deed by which the  power itself be create it shall receive a more favourable construction than if  it have be reserve to one who be a stranger to the inheritance by the rule of  descent that it plain appear by the proof in this case that earl Gilbert  certain intend to execute this power for by his direction a deed be draw for  that purpose which the trustee for the countess dislike at the time the say  earl be about to execute it be send up to London to have another deed draw  which be do and return into the country and be in the possession of his  steward who be go from home the earl die sudden without execute that deed so  that if it appear to this court that earl Gilbert design to execute it that  shall be take in equity to be good against the present earl like a will which  though not sign by the testator be good in equity a a feme covert have a power  to dispose of money by will sign and seal by her make a testamentary paper not  seal but on a stamp and the court hold this a good execution of the power for  the stamp be equivalent to seal spring v Barnard brown c c a to charge the  heir at law in the realty as well as the executor in the personalty on the  other side it be argue that not to execute a power punctual be the same thing  as not to execute it at all and power not execute be never help in this court  b see Arundel v Philpot vern Ch case Pigot v Penrice comy to lift v to lift  Peer wms madam v Logan brown c c b unless it be to avoid a apparent injury in  conscience though in strictness of law lose which be not the present case  because it appear that this lady the plaintiff have a very good provision make  for her by the will of earl Gilbert her late husband for he leave her a legacy  of three thousand pound together with the value of two hundred pound more of  his personal estate which with the two hundred and fifty pound settle on her  for life and Payable yearly out of certain land be a reasonable equivalent for  her fortune modern report as to the case of a will that it shall be good in  equity though not sign by the testator it have its own reason for if he write  his name in any part of his will it be a good sign and will be common make in  limit and for that reason they be favour in equity now in the present case it  appear that earl Gilbert make a will a little before he death and he may at  the same time have execute the deed if he have intend so to do but probable he  think that he have do enough already for the plaintiff and therefore will not  lie any far charge on the land it be true the plaintiff bring a considerable  portion in money and so come in as a purchaser for a valuable consideration  but that will be no reason to charge the present earl because none of it come  to his use but if it charge any one it must be either the heir or executor of  earl Gilbert for be covenant that he or his heir will settle five hundred  pound ayear on the plaintiff which can not be by virtue of the power reserve  in the will of earl Thomas because earl Gilbert ad only a estate for life and  consequent can not bind his heir to settle a jointure by virtue of that power  modern report er p so that if his heir be bind it must be in another respect  but the defendant can never be bind as heir because be be the remainderman in  tail it be true power reserve in a voluntary settlement as this be by earl  Thomas ought to be favourable construe in respect to he who make they but it  be not so where power be join to a estate to charge that of a stranger but yet  there be case where power reserve in and by a voluntary settlement have not  receive a favourable construction in this court as for instance in the case of  the earl of Montague v bath a Chan Rep Chan case Com dig chancery oh a where a  power of revocation be reserve in a deed but it be to be in the presence of  three privycounsellors and the duke of Albemarle who have reserve such power  do by his will revoke the deed but be that time governor of Jamaica he can not  do it in the presence of three privycounsellor it be true this revocation be  hold good in equity but it be upon that particular reason videlicet because be  can not have three privycounsellor there but this court deny to help the  single circumstance of a mistake in the tender of a guinea so in sir Charles  Orbys case b Orby v Lord Mohun easter term whether Eq Abr Freem vern Rep in  equity Prec in Ch Chan Rep b which be thus the earl of Macclesfield be tenant  for life with a power to make lease for twentyone year or three life so as the  modern report old accustom yearly rend be reserve he make a lease for three  life without any special reservation but only yield and pay the oldaccustomed  rend general and this be hold a void lease this court will not decree the  execution of a power to the prejudice of a three person when the time for  execute that power be lapse now a power give to tenant for life to make lease  or to settle a jointure shall be strict construe because it enlarge the estate  for life beyond its natural duration to the prejudice of those in reversion or  remainder so where a woman make a settlement of her land with a power to  revoke it at any time in favour of her husband and she afterward send several  letter to her lawyer to prepare a deed to revoke that settlement and to give  the estate to her heir but never execute such deed this court refuse to make a  decree accord to what appear to be her intention by those letter for the  decree ought to be find on what she have do and not on what she intend to do  in the principal case no decree be now make the Lord chancellor take time to  consult the judge afterward this case be argue again in easter term in the ten  year of George the first before the Lord chancellor assist by the master of  the roll and baron price and baron Gilbert the substance of the argument for  the plaintiff be as follow this bill be bring to have a jointure intend to be  settle on the plaintiff by virtue of a power in the will of Thomas earl of  Coventry which provide that it shall be lawful for any person who shall be  seize c by virtue of the say will to settle five hundred pound ayear on any  wife he shall marry she bring a equivalent fortune the testator die and earl  Gilbert be seize of the estate for his life enter into article to trustee c  upon his intermarriage with the plaintiff by which he covenant to settle land  pursuant to his power or otherwise of the value of five hundred pound ayear on  her and get a draught of a settlement to carry the say article into execution  in which this power be mention and direct that a mortgage which affect some of  the land shall be discharge in order to make the settlement more effectual and  this bill be bring in the disjunctive either to be quiet in the possession of  the land mention in the settlement thus draw or to have satisfaction from the  modern report heir of earl Gilbert this court direct a account to be take what  asset of earl Gilbert come to his heir which on the report make thereof fall  short some thousand pound to satisfy the plaintiff demand and thereupon it be  now argue that these article ought to be carry into execution and the rather  because the plaintiff be a purchaser for a valuable consideration and the  defendant be only a volunteer under the will of earl Thomas the case be strict  as follow tenant for life without impeachment of waste with a power to settle  five hundred pound ayear on any wife he shall marry and who shall bring a  equivalent modern report er p fortune remainder to the defendant c tenant for  life upon his marriage enter into article by which he covenant to settle five  hundred pound ayear on his intend wife and in pursuance of this covenant a  settlement of land be draw by his direction but he die before be execute the  say deed now it be a general rule in equity that where there be a purchaser  for a valuable consideration on article only without any other conveyancer  those article shall be carry into execution and as this be often do in the  case of a heir on the article of his ancestor so it ought to be do in the  present case and those case where the court will not compel the execution of  power be where it will be against the will of the donor they shall be execute  such be the case of the heir in tail where this court will not enforce he to  suffer a common recovery though his father be decree so to do and die in  contempt for not do it it be true where a power be not execute at all but  total neglect there may be some reason for a court of equity not to enforce  the execution thereof but where it be execute in any part though not strict  perform it be the stand rule of this court to make it good now upon  consideration of the circumstance of this case and the solemnity of the  transaction by draw a settlement pursuant to the article and by the express  direction of earl Gilbert this be a good execution of his power in equity  beside the strict execution of this power be prevent by a accident for earl  Gilbert call for this settlement in his last sickness which be ready engross  and in the possession of his steward who be then go from home it can not be  bad for he to execute before be die so that the plaintiff have good equity  even upon that foot and there be modern report several precedent where article  have be carry into execution against remainderman as the case of the Lord  Burlington v Clifford a Eq Abr vern Rep in equity a and hollingshed v  hollingshed b pale yellow Rep in Eq b and Parker v Parker c pale yellow Rep in  Eq c for young child portion and AIford v AIford d pale yellow Rep Eq Eq Abr d  in which last case the person who have the power covenant to execute it before  he have it and while it be in contingency but it afterward vest in the  covenantor and not be execute by he it be carry into execution against the  remainderman and so shall this those who argue for the defendant admit that  the plaintiff be a purchaser in the high sense and for the most valuable  consideration which be marriage and a portion in marriage yet where she be  such a purchaser at large and of no particular land she must take her remedy  where the law give it and that can be of those land for certain she be no  purchaser thereof at law there be three thing rely on by her counsel to make  her a purchaser in this court and those be the article the draw the settlement  pursuant to the say article and the will of earl Thomas and that though one of  these may not do it yet connected in space to help it have be say that every  wife who bring a equivalent fortune be a purchaser of those land under that  will and the power thereby create but this be a very position because it be  essential that every power shall be ad it pleases of he who have it until it  be execute so that the plaintiff can be say to be a purchaser under this will  and power before that power be execute and as to the article so much rely on  and the covenant therein mention to settle five hundred pound ayear it be only  a general covenant relate to no particular estate or land therefore the  plaintiff be only a creditor under that covenant at large which be not like  the case of hollingshed v hollingshed a pale yellow Eq Rep a for there the  covenant be tie to the very land in the power and there be no other to answer  it it be true that special form of word be not necessary in execute power and  that infant and femes covert may perform the same because they be only  instrument b contra as to infant by Verney master of the roll viner Abr in  note pl b it be true likewise that in the Lord burlington case there be a  general covenant but it do not rest there for be settle what he pretend be a  thousand pound ayear accord to the article which be afterward find to be of  less modern report er p value and appear so to be by the defendant answer  modern report but the case of the mortgagee who have a decree in this court  against the mortgagor who be tenant in tail to suffer a common recovery and  die in contempt of the court in not perform the say decree yet the court will  not carry that decree into execution against the heir in tail be a very strong  case against the plaintiff lady Coventry for in that case the tenant in tail  have a imply power to suffer a common recovery by virtue of that estate which  he have in the land and be himself may have be compel to do it if he have be  live but after his death his heir be not and yet he in a great measure derive  his estate under his ancestor who be tenant in tail than the present defendant  do under earl Gilbert it be true a tenant in tail have power only by  implication in law to suffer a common recovery but there seem to be no  material difference between imply and express power for wherever the party be  on a level as volunteer this court will never interpose to favour one more  than the other it be admit that in this case some step be take towards a  future act but still all rest in intention and it seem reasonable to have this  power or this covenant carry into execution if there be no other way by which  it may be satisfy but it be plain there be other mean by which it may be  satisfy and that be by the personal asset of earl Gilbert therefore a specific  execution of this power ought not to be decree the judge who assist the Lord  chancellor divide this case into two point first whether anything be do by  earl Gilbert in consequence of this power to make it a lie on the defendant  who be a remainderman second if any such thing be do then whether the  defendant have any equity to be reimburse out of the asset of earl Gilbert as  to the first question they hold that earl Gilbert have so far execute the  power as to be a lie on the estate in the hand of the remainderman when power  be first create by the statute Henry c they be strict construe at law and the  reason be to avoid recall and unsettle estate already settle and probable for  the same reason such power have no countenance in this court modern report but  the power in the present case which be reserve to a tenant for life to raise a  estate be part of the old dominion which the donor have over his estate and  agreeable to his intention at the very time he make such reservation and  therefore shall have a favourable construction in this court that the price  here give I e the portion pay and the article execute be a complete conveyance  and a good execution of this power and that ever since the execution of these  article earl Gilbert be a trustee for the plaintiff and such trust be  assignable and devisable in this court that there be but one case cite at the  bar against this opinion and that be the case of a mortgagor who be tenant in  tail and be decree to suffer a common recovery but die in contempt of that  decree and this court will not carry it in execution against the heir but the  reason may be because the heir after the death of his ancestor be in by the  statute de gift which this court can not control but if the ancestor have be  beneficiary and trust in tail his heir will have be bind by such ancestor lie  because in that case he will not have be in by that statute it have be argue  at the bar that these article shall not be carry into a specific execution in  favour of a volunteer when there be a plain remedy to he have on the covenant  for damage but that be only where a man be ad it pleases to perform it or not  if the trustee by the marriagearticle have exhibit a bill in this court to  have a specific execution thereof it will certain have be decree for he and so  ought it to be for the plaintiff especial since the power create by the will  of earl Thomas cover all the estate which he settle by that will upon the  whole it may be hard for a court of equity to carry the settlement alone thus  draw and engross into the execution of this power exclusive of the article  because the statute of fraud now stand in the way but this power be bind by  the article the very draught of that settlement be a good designation of what  land shall be settle and a determination of earl gilbert election to raise the  five hundred pound ayear out of and by virtue of his power as to the second  point which be whether the defendant have a equity to be reimburse out of the  asset of earl modern report Gilbert I e how far those article will bind his  heir and as to that matter the word be to be consider videlicet that he modern  report er p or his heir will settle land of the value of five hundred pound  ayear by virtue of his power or otherwise now it have be say at the bar that  these be technical word write current branch and insert in the article without  consideration but this seem to be a mistake for the word be careful put in as  auxiliary to the real lie videlicet that if his power shall happen to be  insufficient to settle five hundred pound ayear that then it shall be do by  some other mean and it be probable this marriage have never take effect but in  consideration of this power so that the asset of earl Gilbert shall not come  in exoneration of the settle estate for wherever asset be bring in exoneration  there the debt original charge the personalty it be true he have election to  raise this five hundred pound ayear out of his own asset or out of his power  but it seem plain that he intend to raise it out of his power for here be a  deed draw and engross though not execute by which deed the land therein  mention be of the value of five hundred pound be settle on the plaintiff in  jointure so that this initiate act though not consummate be sufficient to show  his intention to execute this power which be bind by the article to perform  but if it have be ad it pleases there a initiate act will not have be  sufficient it be decree for the plaintiff that she be a purchaser of this five  hundred pound ayear under the will of earl Thomas and the article of earl  Gilbert and that though this power be not strict perform yet here be a  valuable consideration it shall be carry into execution in this court that the  article be a sufficient lie in equity to carry it into execution and this be a  lie ever since the article be execute there can be no colour to charge the  asset of earl Gilbert so it be decree that the plaintiff shall have those very  land specify in the deed a for instance in which a court of equity will supply  defective execution of power see pollard v Grenvill Ch case Ch Rep smith v  Ashton Freem fothergil v fothergil Freem Garth v Blanfrey pale yellow e r to  lift v to lift Peer wms Harvey v Harvey atk Gotter v Layer Peer wms holt v  holt Peer wms wade v paget brown c c sneed v sneed Amb Wilson v Piggott vezey  jun Jackson v Jackson brown c c a easter term the nine of George the first in  the year in the court of chancery earl of Macclesfield Lord chancellor sir  Joseph Jekyll Knt master of the roll