c hatcher v curtis and sir richard anderson S c Eq can ab power execute post  case land be convey to trustee for such use as mrs everston shall direct limit  and appoint she voluntary by write under her hand and seal do limit the use to  the plaintiff and she be a feme covert the deed be keep in she or her husband  hand afterward she destroy this deed and limit the use to the defendant and  there be no power of revocation reserve in the first deed the question be  whether she be so bind by the first limitation that it be not in her power to  alter it and the Lord chancellor say though this be a case of value yet there  be no difficulty in it for when the power be once execute by deed there be no  power freeman er p reserve by that deed to revoke or alter it a subsequent  limitation by another deed will be void for the first deed and the last will  always take place but otherwise it be if the limitation be to be execute by  will for there the party may make his will so often how often and the last  shall take place if a power be reserve to limit a trust by deed or will if it  be once limit by deed it can never afterward be alter but a will be of its own  nature revocable and alterable it freeman may be revoke or alter as the arty  please Reid v shergold Ves matthews v Warner Ves and it be contend though the  instrument in this case be strict speak a declaration of use not a will it yet  so far possess the property of a will as to continue ambulatory and revocable  without any special reservation of a power to that effect oak v heath Ves sen  duke of Marlborough v Lord Godolphin Ves sen Lisle v Lisle Br Cotter v Lager p  wms for trust be govern by the rule of law though the execution of they be  compellable only in this court but if the power reserve to limit by deed be  from time to time then he may limit and revoke so often how often provide that  to each new revocation and limitation there be annex a fresh power of  revocation otherwise the use limit upon the first revocation must stand hale v  pond Prec in Charles Reg lib a fol the case of Livingston and Oswald car be  cite as a precedent which ought to govern this case in which it be adjudge  under similar circumstance by this court assist by several judge that the  first revocation of the power and the first deed shall stand and not be again  revocable and now the case cite be declare to be express in point and that the  first deed execute in this matter have be find by trial a law to have be duly  execute and there be no clause of power of revocation therein the say power  have thereby be full execute and although the last deed recite the power that  be not in itself a revocation of the first deed it be therefore decree that  the last deed under which the defendant Curtis claim be set aside and that the  first deed under which the plaintiff claim do stand and take place as a good  deed and make in full execution of the say power and that the defendant Curtis  shall convey to the plaintiff all his right title and interest in all the  premise limit and appoint to the plaintiff by the say first deed and that all  the remit and profit receive by the defendant Curtis out of the say estate be  account for by he and be apply in discharge of the say trust