case Elliot versus he will novembris Lord chancellor Ch can Eq can ab pl S c  tenant in tail with power to make a jointure in consideration of marriage  article to make a jointure and die without issue and without make the jointure  the wife die and her executrix bring a bill for a account of the profit of the  land article to be settle bill dismiss tenant in tail with power to make a  jointure of land in the county of a b and c remainder in tail to I S marry and  receive pound portion with his wife and by article before his marriage  covenant to settle a jointure but die before any settlement be make the wife  die and her executrix bring the bill to have a account of the profit of the  land which by the article be covenant to be settle in jointure against the  remainderman who have upon his marriage settle those land upon his wife and  her issue but with notice of the power in the first tenant in tail to make a  jointure the Lord chancellor dismiss the bill there be no equity for the  administratrix of the first jointress against Vernon chancery case the second  and her issue who be equal a purchaser with the first and this power be a  general power to make a jointure and not say of what land in particular be not  such a lie upon the land as shall affect a purchaser though the power have be  afterward execute much less where it be not execute at all for as a man by  such general power may make a jointure of pound per and so he may make a  jointure of pound or pound per and and say there be a great difference between  a defective execution of a power and where the power be not execute at all but  then for the plaintiff it be insist that there be some feesimple land which be  devise over and those land in the hand of a voluntary devisee be as much bind  by those article as if they have remain in the hand of the heir as where a  trustee make a voluntary conveyance the feoff accord to the resolution in  chudleighs case before the statute of use stand seize to the same use and the  law be the same of a trust which be not execute by the statute at this day Reg  lib a fol where the statement be very short and contain nothing more than that  the bill be to have satisfaction for what shall have come to her the jointress  if a settlement have be make accord to a agreement and bind of pound vide  Girling v lee ante p where testator in his will refer to a power but do not  legal execute it and have other estate to which the will can apply the defect  of the execution can be supply Lowson v Lowson bro Ch Rep but otherwise where  he can not make the gift but by virtue of the power ibidem so a covenant on a  marriage settlement refer to a power or to the estate on which the power  attach be it seem in respect of the consideration a sufficient indication of a  intent to execute such power Fothergill v Fothergill Freem Holinshed v  Holinshed cite Coventry v Coventry p wms Alford v Alford cite ibidem Coventry  v Coventry p wms more full report at the end of Francis maxim in equity and  report also in Str and Mod but this court will not supply the non Vernon  chancery case er p execution of a power Tollett v Tollett p wms Holmes v  Coghill Ves Ves brown v Higgs Ves Harrington v heart Cox Reid v shergold Ves  but this be where a mere power in the case of a power partake of the nature of  a trust this court will execute Ves Powell on power and for observation on  this case p see also Harding v Glyn atk Peirson v Garnett bro Ch Rep Crossling  v Crossling Cox brown v Higgs ub sup and Ves Cruwys v Coleman Ves Gower v Eyre  Cooper and further what circumstance shall be construe in equity to be a  sufficient indication of a intent to execute a power vide Clifford v  Benlington post vol smith v Ashton Ch can bath and Montague case Ch can Fonbl  Tr on equity book ch sec and a power must be execute in order to create a  charge per Lord chief baron bull v vardi in the excheq Ves jun nor do a  interest arise under a power become the estate of the party until the power be  execute such dict Eyre Lord commissioner black v Bunbury ibidem but power of  appointment do not prevent the interest vest subject to be divest read v read  Ves and case in not there et vide earl of Uxbridge v Bailey ibidem and  whenever party have a power by deed to do a particular act when do under the  power it be as if incorporate under the original deed when execute ibidem S c  as to the execution of power it be clear that a power be apportionable and  therein differ from a condition at commonlaw which be not Edward v slater hard  and that under circumstance it may be execute at several time and over  different part of the premise subject thereto as of revocation Woolston v  Woolston Blackst Rep burr SC and of appoint a fee Bovey v smith ante and case  cite in note there and where the power be exceed equity will correct the  excess and uphold the execution thereof so far as the power warrant Robinson v  Hardcastle bro Ch Rep and case there cite Crompe v barrow Ves brudenell v  Elwes Ves and may be good as to part and bad as to part ibidem so Wilson v  Piggott Ves jun et vide Powell on power p et seq so where power relate to real  estate it may be execute cy pres Routledge v Dorril ibidem but that rule can  be apply to personal property ibidem and further as to the application of the  doctrine of cy pres to the case of a settlement vide brudenell v Elwes ub sup  as to what shall or shall not be consider as a good execution of a power it be  evident that must depend in most case on nice circumstance that can scarce be  draw into precedent in the case however of a power to sell or exchange a  partition in common be hold to be a good execution Abel v Heathcote Ves jun so  a power to appoint land well execute by a charge a power to charge include a  power to sell Kenworthy v bear Ves and as a general principle it seem that a  power be hold to be not well execute by general word in a will Langham v Nenny  Ves cross v slay Ves and case cite there respective roach v Haynes Ves t a  direct reference to the power be not necessary the intention however must  distinct point to the subject of it Bennett v Aburrow Ves though former  otherwise ibidem nor will the court look into the circumstance of the property  where a will consider as no execution Nannock v Horton Ves and a power not  execute be not asset ibidem as to a power of appointment over a sum of money  be asset vide George v milbanke Ves as to the particular jurisdiction of a  court of equity to supply defect in the execution of a power vide butcher v  butcher Ves Bramhall v hall Amb Eden Jackson v Jackson bro Ch Rep uvykham v  uvykham Ves Shannon v Bradstreet Sch l black v Marnell ba be dow moody v Reid  mad and as to illusory appointment under a power vide Gibson v Kinven ante and  case cite in note there Vanderzee v aclom Ves woollen v tanner Ves Spencer v  Spencer ibidem long v long ibidem