c CAWKRY CRAYKER v parrett power to a wife to distribute the estate as she  shall think fit among the child a leaves pound to his wife to distribute if  she shall marry again among his child as she shall think fit Maddison v Andrew  Ves sen Bax v whitbread Ves butcher v butcher Ves and Bea establish the  doctrine that in such case unequal appointment if not illusory will be support  in equity though c p post be contra but difficulty be to say in each  particular case what be illusory and what be not Spencer Ves and die leave  three daughter by her and one by a former venture the wife marry and after  marriage dispose of pound among her own three daughter and only pound to the  plaintiff who be a daughter by a former venture and it be argue at the bar and  I think the opinion of the whole bar be that these word as she shall think fit  do give the wife a power of dispose unequal or else they must be void and if  they be once admit there can be no bind set to freeman er p that inequality  but she may give as much as she will to one and as little as she will to  another and for that they cite the case of auditor oldisworth and sir William  juxon executor to the archbishop who leave pound to be distribute by his  executor among his servant as he shall think fit have respect to their quality  and condition and he have some pique against oldisworth who be secretary to  the archbishop give he but pound and give the coachman pound and oldisworth  prefer a bill in the exchequer but can have no relief which be say to be a  strong case that this because of the word have regard to their quality freeman  and it be say that the marriage can not alter the case for a feme covert may  execute a power Daniel v Tomlinson v Dighton p wms Hearle v Greenbank atk  peacock v monk Ves sen may be attorney to her husband Tracy v Dutton palm  Stevenson v hardy will stone v MNair price post c p c p and in some case where  she be executrix may sell but the good fides of the transaction must be  indisputable prove subject to this salutary jealousy of influence the right of  disposal may be exercise by a feme covert in favour of her husband park v  white Ves Pybus v smith Ves jun Grigby v Cox Ves sen Paulet v Delaval Ves sen  to her husband which be admit by the Lord chancellor Mr attorney put this  difference where a trust be leave to a feme while she be sole without any  mention of her marriage there if she marry she lose her power but if she be  covert at the time when the trust of power be give to her she may execute it  well enough but the Lord chancellor set aside the distribution upon this  ground because when the husband entrust the wife with this power his design be  that by this mean the child shall be keep in obedience and respectful to her  and if either shall misbehave herself it shall be in her power to chastise her  but this reason fail when she marry again see Lord Antrim v duke of Buckingham  post c p Gibbons v Moulton Rep tempt finch if the exercise of the power be not  express restrict to the feme be sole her subsequent marriage will not affect  it Bayley v Warburton comens Reg lib a fol the Lord chancellor declare he be  satisfy it be the testator intent that all his child shall have equal share  and as it appear in proof that the defendant the testator second wife promise  to be as kind to his daughter by the first venture as to his other child and  to make they all equal and there not have be any disobedience on the part of  the plaintiff his lordship conceive the distribution which have be make by her  mother inlaw the defendant to be very unequal and unjust and do therefore  decree that the defendant shall account for the say testator estate and that  there shall be a equal distribution make among the testator child and that the  defendant shall satisfy to the plaintiff her share and proportion thereof and  then it be the intent of the husband that she shall make distribution before  she marry freeman de term S trin in curian porter