ambler I churchman against harvey ante p serjeant hill ms will Lord  commissioner the question in this case be saint from what time the portion of  the daughter be to carry interest and second who be to pay they whether the  representative of the daughter or the purchaser as to these portion be  Chargeable with interest from the time of the failure of issue male upon the  reversion there be no colour for it this power to limit a jointure be certain  not legal execute and this must be consider as a defective execution to  consider they both as purchaser for consideration the son be as much a  purchaser of this power as of his estate for life marriage have be consider as  a consideration in Hervey v Hervey and the wife be also a purchaser under the  original settlement so be double a purchaser the power be give the son either  before or after marriage and be execute as it may be after marriage and though  a conveyance to trustee for the benefit of the wife be not a legal execution  of the power to limit a jointure   Litt b Hervey v Hervey atk yet it ought to  be make good in equity Hervey v Hervey atk if the heir at law have bring a  ejectment he certain may have succeed at law but this court will have relieve  the jointress and here the interest vest in her from the time the jointure be  make but not in the daughter till the failure of issue male suppose Robert  have die leave a son which have live seven or eight year afterward must the  estate have vest in the wife and go out of her again upon his decease what  absurdity will this construction ambler lead to and therefore I be of opinion  these portion can not be raise till the death of the jointress and will carry  interest only from that time Lord commissioner Wilmot there be three question  in this case whether this power be well execute in point of law d and which be  the most material whether if the power be not well execute in point of law  whether it be a good equitable execution and the right of the daughter to be  consider as if it have be legal execute d from what time accord to the true  construction of the trust of this term they be entitle to interest as to the  first point the difference be between a particular and affirmative power and a  general power restrain by a negative Whitelocks case   b a particular  affirmative power must be direct pursue as if a man have a power to make a  lease for three life or twentyone year he can make a lease for ninetynine year  determinable on three life Campbell v leech Amb for all those power be in the  nature of authority and must be strict pursue and there be very good reason  why they shall be so for a lease for twentyone year be of more benefit to the  estate than for a less term the lessee have from the length of the term a  encouragement to make improvement and in this case there may be very good  reason to give the wife a estate for life for her jointure because during the  continuance of that estate it will prevent he in the remainder in tail from  suffer a recovery and therefore I think this be not a good execution of the  power at law by this conveyance to the trustee for ninetynine year to permit  the wife to take the profit during her life and the case of battle and Popham  Str be a authority in point it be a defective execution in be limit to a  stranger instead of to the wife and also for not be limit to the wife for life  so as to have give her a estate of freehold power be unknown to the commonlaw  and come in with the statute of use all these power must operate as a  declaration of the use and always as if the limitation have be in the original  deed it can be appoint to a ambler stranger because there can be a limitation  of a use upon a use and though this be a jointure limit after marriage and so  will not bar her dower yet if a widow accept such jointure after the death of  her husband this will be a bar to her but a term for year will not bar her  even in that case and therefore it will have be very material to have give her  a estate for life which may have be a bar therefore this jointure not be legal  execute the term vest in possession on the death of Robert Harvey when there  be a total failure of issue male and therefore this lead I to the second  question whether this court will have aid the defective execution of this  power in favour of the wife and I think they clear will ambler er p I be  incline to think this be a settlement for valuable consideration but I do not  find my opinion upon that point for I be of opinion it be a good settlement if  not for valuable consideration bobert the grandfather be the settlor I take it  I h the son have no interest in the estate sir Houblen the father of Elizabeth  John wife appear to have pay pound as a portion with his daughter and at this  distance of time it must be take to have be pay and this consideration will  extend to all the limitation that concern the issue of the marriage but not  further at the time of make this settlement Robert the son of h be bear and it  be this circumstance which grieve the daughter the belief it they now claim or  else Robert will have be tenant in tail and this be a reason why this power  shall be consider in a favourable light the power be give before or after  marriage therefore the grandfather sir I Houblen be as much a purchaser of  this power for the grandchilds wife as if it have be insert in the deed and  she do not claim under her husband but under the person that create the power  in the original settlement and therefore this can not be consider as voluntary  and fraudulent against creditor they must have be creditor of Robert the  grandfather the settlor from who the estate move in this case Robert the  grandson be a mere instrument and nothing arise from his bounty and though  this be a jointure after marriage yet there be as much reason to protect the  estate of the wife as the ambler child as the grandfather purchase for both  and I think the wife have more merit who produce the child than the child  themselves when produce the daughter here have only equity themselves but if  this be a mere voluntary execution of the power yet this court will supply a  defective execution in favour of a jointress or young child Ch Cas for this  court consider that they have a antecedent right by nature to a provision in  the case of to lift v to lift wms a husband have a power to make a jointure  upon his wife by deed he do it by will and she have no other provision it be  insist this conveyance by will be not warrant by the power and that a will be  a voluntary conveyance and not to be aid in equity but the court say they will  supply a defective execution of a power either for payment of debt or a  provision for a wife or child unprovide for it be the duty of every man to  provide for his wife or child but the difference be between a defective  execution and a nonexecution the court can relieve in the last case arundel v  Philpot vern tomkyn v Sandys p W n bull v vardi Ves jun it be contrary to the  nature of a power which be leave to the free will of the party whether he will  execute it or not carter v carter in the case of Harvey v Harvey Michaelmas  term before my Lord Hardwicke his lordship say that the rule that a wife or  child who come into equity to aid the defective execution of a power shall be  total unprovide for and that in aid such defective execution of deed it have  never be require that those deed shall be find on any valuable consideration  in the strict sense of the word but be intend to make a provision for the wife  and child have be sufficient and the party be a mere volunteer be no objection  against extend the assistance of this court to supply the defective execution  of a power in favour of a wife week v earl the wife and child be creditor by  nature and therefore this court will aid the defective execution and then it  will be the same as if the limitation to the wife for life have be insert in  the original settlement in Coventry v Coventry there be a nonexecution of a  power which this court ambler do not supply but there be article enter into  and a contract to execute and be for valuable consideration the court decree a  execution of the power and therefore these portion not be to be raise till the  death of the jointress it bring I to the three point at what time the portion  shall carry interest if the principal be not raisable in the lifetime of the  jointress these portion will not carry interest till her death for all  interest be in default of payment buller v Duncomb wms and upon the whole I be  of opinion with my Lord commissioner will that these portion for the daughter  ought not to be raise till the decease of the jointress and that they ought to  carry interest from that time ambler er p