case MENZEY versus walker Reg lib a fol April the father by marriage  settlement have a power to make a appointment of a sum not exceed a sum  certain for portion and maintenance of young child in such manner and under  such limitation as he shall appoint he have several young child and by his  will take notice that the rest be provide for by their grandfather he appoint  the whole sum to one this be not a good pursuance of his power Mr walker upon  his marriage settle his estate upon himself for life remainder to his wife  remainder to trustee for a term of three hundred year remainder to his first  and other son and the trust of the term be declare to be for the raise such  sum and sum of money for the portion and portion and maintenance of all and  every child and child of that marriage other than a old son in such manner and  at such time and under such limitation as he the say Mr walker shall appoint  by his last will or by deed under hand and seal attest by three credible  witness so as such sum or sum do not in the whole amount to above pound if but  one young child or pound if more than one and so as all the sum for such  maintenance do not in the whole amount to above pound per and case tempt  Talbot and for want of such appointment then in trust to raise such portion or  portion equal to be divide among all his young child share and share alike to  be pay to they respective at the age of twentyone or day of marriage the  testator have three young child and by his will duly execute recite that his  two daughter be ample provide for by their grandfather he appoint the whole  sum of pound to his second son Thomas walker and the question be whether this  appointment of the whole to one be a good appointment and make pursuant to his  power this cause be hear at the bolls where it be decree to be not a good  appointment and now come on to be hear before the Lord chancellor Mr  attorneygeneral c argue this appointment to be good and say that a difference  be to be make where such power be to be execute by a stranger and where by the  father himself who be a proper judge of the merit of each child and consequent  that the court will not interpose to set aside this distribution consider the  particular circumstance of this case where by the word of the power he be not  bind to raise the whole sum of pound but may if he have please not have raise  the ten part of that sum the father in this case have a latitude or else the  provide how this sum shall be divide in case no appointment be make by he will  have be vain and idle and if it be not necessary for he by the word to divide  it equal this appointment make b he must be good it be in proof here that the  other child be provide for by their grandfather and take good estate from he  indeed where certain direction be give that such and such sum shall be give to  each child there nothing be leave either to the discretion of the party or of  the court but where this court have relieve against the case tempt Talbot  execution of power mere discretionary in their creation it have not be for  inequality only but for some other piece of injustice or hardship in the case  of wall versus Thorborn which case be this sir George crook by his will devise  that his real estate shall descend to his three daughter and heir provide that  his wife shall distribute it in such proportion as she shall think fit the  mother by deed execute in her lifetime appoint a very small proportion for the  plaintiff wife who be one of the three daughter and have appoint the rest for  the other two daughter and the bill be to be relieve against this unequal  distribution upon long debate the court declare the case be proper and  relievable in equity vern relief be give because there be no reason that one  daughter shall be look upon in a different light from the other she have no  particular provision but even in that case the court say that the circumstance  must be very strong to take away the power which the wife have by the express  word and in that case wall wife v Thorborn and in the same case the plaintiff  cite the case of Cragrave v Penost where a man have two daughter one by a  former wife and another by his second wife devise his estate to his wife to be  distribute between his daughter as his wife shall think fit and she give pound  to her own daughter and but pound to the other and the court there decree a  equal distribution another be cite of Sweetnam versus Wolaston where relief be  deny in that of Thomas and Thomas in this case the power be special and  particular that the wife may dispose to one or more and not like the case of a  general trust in the executrix to distribute among the young child at  discretion there a unreasonable and indiscreet disposition may be control by a  court of equity but this be casus provisus it be express provide that she may  give all to one and decree the appointment make by the wife to stand vern it  be say that this court will relieve against a unreasonable but not a unequal  this case tempt Talbot er p distribution upon a special or particular power  which be the case of Lister versus Robinson mich where a man give a power to  his wife to devise such a sum to and among his child and child and in such  manner and proportion to each child as she shall think fit there be two child  and the elder be provide for the mother appoint the whole to the young upon  which appointment a bill be bring here for a equal distribution but be dismiss  so in that of Austin versus Austin hear by the present Lord chancellor march  where the word of the trust be that if Robert Austin the father die leave by  jane his wife a son and other issue then live then and in such case to raise a  sum not exceed pound as soon as may be to and for the sole benefit and  advantage of such child or child other than the old son of that marriage in  such proportion manner and form in all respect as the say Robert shall for  such purpose by his last will and write direct and appoint and in default of  such appointment then to and for the sole benefit of such child if but one and  if more other than the old equal and in equal part and manner to all intent  and purpose Robert by his will direct the pound to be raise and give pound to  his son Robert pound to jane and nothing to Edward who have a estate of or  pound per and give he case tempt Talbot by another and he come into this court  for a share of the pound his bill be dismiss the power be discretionary and  nothing hard in the execution of it the case before mention will govern this  for here the manner the time the limitation be all reserve to he by the power  whereby he may have give it to one soon to the other late to the one absolute  to the other under a limitation in which case there will have be a inequality  as well as in the present one indeed in austin case there be not the word in  such proportion but there be word tantamount and these power be reserve to  parent in order to keep their child in due obedience be high reasonable that  parent may have a power of distribution accord to the merit or circumstance of  each particular child Mr solicitor general Mr pauncefort and Mr fazakerley  argue on the other side against the validity of this appointment and though  they admit that perhaps where power be general or discretionary this court  will not intermeddle yet they insist that here the power be particular and  consequent must be strict pursue the argument of this power be execute by the  father himself will nit alter the case for by the word it be clear that a  provision be intend for every child and all the child be become purchaser of  some provision under this power the word be for all and every of they and  consequent though the father be a better judge than a stranger yet be disable  by the word from exclude any of they this court will take care that he as well  as any other shall follow the rule of reason and justice the discretionary  power lodge in the father by this power be first to be consider with relation  to the old son who circumstance perhaps may not be able to hear so great a  charge as pound or pound and therefore the father have a power to charge the  estate with such a sum as he shall think his son estate can hear provide it do  not exceed case tempt Talbot pound if but one young child or pound if more it  must next be consider with relation to the young child and there three thing  be leave to his discretion videlicet the time manner and the limitation the  time whether it shall be Payable at the day of marriage or at any other time  the manner which must be understand the manner of raise and not of distribute  the sum this construction agree with the word of the power in every clause and  the subsequent provision make it Clear especial that which relate to  advancement by the father in his lifetime the limitation which he have power  of make but still for the child benefit for one may marry imprudent or be  guilty of some other piece of folly which may make it necessary for the father  to limit the p share of such child in such a manner as may be effectual and  advantageous to that child and his have a discretion in these case can give it  he in the other respect of give the whole to one and nothing to the two other  such discretion be neither give nor intend to be give to he by the word of  this power nor will the two child be provide for by the grandfather alter the  case the intent of the party be to raise a portion for each by the trust and  it will be very unreasonable that a child become by accident able to do for  himself by the bounty of some of his friend shall thereby lose the right he  have of be provide for by his father the case of wall versus Thorborn vern be  a express authority case tempt Talbot er p and in the case of Thomas versus  Thomas vern and Lister and Robinson there be a express power of give it to one  of the child and so not like this so in that of Austin and Austin the power be  much more general and entire discretionary but here be a unreasonable  exclusion of two of the child who have but a small provision no way adequate  to what their brother take under this will Lord chancellor there be two  question the first whether the power be pursue the second whether it be  execute in a reasonable manner case tempt Talbot as to the first I think the  word be as plain as they can be that the execution of this power shall be for  the benefit of all the child indeed it be discretionary in the father how much  shall be raise but he have no such discretion as to exclude one or the other  the word in such manner do clear extend only to the manner of raise there be  several method mention in the power which be to make it as convenient as may  be for the old son the time also be under his discretion whether it shall be  pay at marriage or any other time and so be the limitation but still that be  to be understand of the manner in which the portion shall be settle upon they  whether it shall be upon their respective marriage or in what other manner he  think proper and if he make no appointment then he fix it upon the express  word to be equal divide between the child and the time that it shall be pay  now after a this how can this partial appointment be call a execution of his  power and be not that the present case if then it be clear that he have not  purify his power it be needless to inquire whether the provision make by he be  reasonable or not a void appointment be as no appointment and consequent a  failure of the appointment he be enable to make by his power whether there be  a defective execution of a power creditor or young child be entitle to have  that defect supply but where the execution be mere void as in the present case  and when the court have interpose in such case as this before we it have  always be where the execution though perhaps within the word be attend with  some hardship or unreasonableness so that if this depend upon the  reasonableness or unreasonableness of the execution I shall not determine the  point without some far enquiry into the circumstance of these two daughter but  as a power to all and every can never be restrain to one only I think the  execution void and so the second point be quite out of the question in the  case of Lister and Robinson and Thomas and Thomas vern the word give a general  power which be so the court have nothing case tempt Talbot to do to restrain  they so in that of Austin and Austin the father have a power with regard to  the nomination of the child or child who shall take and there the execution be  high reasonable the person exclude be provide for five time as great as the  other child and so it will have be unreasonable in the court to rescind what  he have do upon so just a ground so affirm the decree Gibson v Kinven vern  wall Thorborn ibidem S c Thomas v Thomas vern Chadwick v doleman ibidem Jermyn  v Fellozvs post Tomlinson v Dighton p will astry v astry Prec in Chanc Dhapman  v brown burr Brownsmith v Denny hill Geo cite will Adam v Adam Cowp Maddson v  Andrews Ves Alexander v Alexander Ves Macei v Thurmer atk Cavendish v  Cavendish B R hill cite bro Charles Rep Mallison v Andrews cite bro Charles  Rep Pocklington v bayne bro Charles Rep Robinson v Hardcastle bro Charles Rep  durnford and Easts Rep vol S c Pitt v Jackson ibidem Burleigh v Pearson Ves  Adam v Adam Cowp Rep note mildmay case   a a case tempt Talbot er p