case ex part george CASWALL in the matter of John CASWALL a bankrupt August  the saint a person may execute a power without recite it but necessary he  shall mention the estate which he dispose of see Probert v Morgan ante sir  George Caswall the father of the petitioner and the bankrupt surrender a  copyhold estate lie at Woodford in Essex to William billers and another person  to the use of the wife of sir George Caswall for life and after his death to  pay the rend and profit to all his child equal and then in trust to such use  or use as sir George shall by deed or will appoint and for want of such  appointment then to his son John Caswall and his heir lady Caswall be dead and  sir George upon the that of Aug make his will in the presence of three witness  in which there be the follow clause as to all the rest residue and remainder  of my effect real and personal of what nature kind or quality soever I give to  my son George Caswall in full bar and satisfaction of what he may claim by  virtue of the custom of London or otherwise the testator die soon after and  John Caswall at the time of make the will be dead George Caswall by his  petition pray that Thomas Clifford the assignee of the estate and effect of  John Caswall under the separate commission of bankruptcy issue against he may  take a proper conveyance of the copyhold land at Woodford in the petition  mention from the commissioner and that he may thereupon duly surrender and  pass the same to the petitioner and his heir or as the petitioner shall direct  and appoint Mr brown who be counsel for the petitioner insist that sir George  Caswall atkins er p have by will make a proper appointment to the petitioner  and that the assignee under the commission against John Caswall the old  brother of the petitioner ought to deliver the possession accord he cite Lord  Ferrer case and Bainton v ware April the that SC post vol to show the present  be like those case because sir George have a power to dispose of it absolute  that it ought to be consider as a interest or estate in sir George Caswall and  not as any part of the estate of John Caswall and compare it to the case of  car v ellison April the that where Mr car by his will devise his estate in  general word without particularize the copyhold and yet hold by Lord  chancellor that it pass SC post vol atkins Mr attorney general for the  creditor of John Caswall who become a bankrupt in say the case cite by Mr  brown be not applicable because there the power be actual execute Lord  chancellor the case of Lord Ferrer be a very extraordinary determination  because the know rule of law be that if a power be execute the person take by  virtue of that power only and not under the appointee for when he have once  appoint he have nothing more to do with the estate and therefore they need not  derive through he cook v Duckenfleld post vol hall v carter ibidem Southby v  Stonehouse Ves see hare v Fletcher Doug the inference from the circumstance of  the son be a bankrupt be not to be regard for I must make such construction as  if John Caswall be live and no bankrupt Thequestion be whether this be a good  execution of the power what a court in a judicial way may do be another matter  but in this summary way as I be at present advice I be of opinion it be not a  good execution of the power the material thing be the limitation over of the  copyhold in the surrender what be the effect of that why there be a estate  actual vest in John Caswall and nothing but a appointment execute can divest  it out of he and this will have be the construction if it have be a legal  estate and though it be a trust estate yet in this court ought to be consider  and construe in the same manner and therefore be no more than a estate for  life to sir George Caswall remainder in fee to John Caswall subject to be  defeat and open on a proper appointment by sir George Caswall though a man may  execute a power without recite or take the least notice of t he power yet it  be necessary he shall mention the estate which he dispose of and must do such  a act as show he take notice of the thing which he have a power to dispose of  sir George Caswall have other land on which the devise to George Caswall may  be satisfy if a man devise all his land and tenement only freehold land will  pass and not copyhold yet if he have nothing but copyhold land they shall pass  see smith v baker ante so where freehold land and leasehold land be devise if  there be no other than leasehold land they shall pass by the word land and  tenement so day v trig p W Knotsford v gardener post vol and reference but  here be nothing that be at all descriptive of the thing which sir George  Caswall have a power to dispose of but what be applicable to other estate of  which sir George be seize and of which he can equal dispose I do therefore  order the petition to be dismiss