case gibson ux versus KINVEN all personal estate devise to the wife upon trust  not to dispose thereof but for the benefit of her child she by will give S  only to one child decree the estate to be divide equal the case be that one  Harris in his lifetime be possess of a considerable personal estate and have  issue four child videlicet two son and two daughter and mary one of his  daughter be now marry to the plaintiff Gibson and and his other daughter to  the defendant Kinven he make his last will and testament in write and thereby  devise several particular legacy to each of his child and give his ready money  good plate and household stuff and personal estate r l to his wife upon trust  and confidence that she will not dispose thereof but for the benefit of her  child the wife after the death of her husband make her will and therein call  herself his executrix and residuary legatee she give several legacy to some of  her child and but S only to the plaintiff and her child and devise all the  rest of her estate pi to her son Bartholomew the statement of the bill be she  be prevail on to make her will and to give all her estate and some small  legacy to Bartholomew her son and make the defendant executor r l the bill be  to relieve herein the plaintiff insist that the wife have devise all this  estate to one of her Vernon chancery case child only this be a void bequest  and a breach of her trust and that therefore the plaintiff ought to be let  into a full three part of the say father estate entrust with the mother as  aforesaid one of the say brother after the make of the say father will die in  his lifetime the defendant by answer confess the will of Harris the father and  do admit that of the brother as dead in his lifetime but set forth further  that the plaintiff have by some mean disoblige her mother in her lifetime and  though they have endeavour td reconcile they and to persuade the mother to  leave the plaintiff her daughter a better legacy yet they can not prevail with  her to do it and further say that about Vernon chancery case er p three month  since to prevent dispute there be a case touch this matter draw up and agree  to by the plaintiff and refer to sir Francis Pemberton now Lord chief justice  of England to determine who give it as his opinion that notwithstanding the  word in the will videlicet upon trust and confidence that she will not dispose  thereof but for the benefit of her child yet that the executrix have power to  dispose of the residue to which of her child she will and that she be not bind  thereby to divide it equal and that if she have give the plaintiff her  daughter but a ring only it have be good after this cause have be much debate  and several precedent produce where in such case very unequal distribution  have be approve and ratify by this court the Lord chancellor decree for the  plaintiff for that the distribution in this case be so very unequal and that  without any good reason show to warrant it and therefore he think fit to  rectify it in this case and can not do it otherwise than by decree a equal  distribution Reg lib a fol this decree appear to be confirm on a rehear before  the Lord keeper in the easter term follow and also a further part of the order  whereby the defendant be decree to come to a account with the plaintiff for  what they have receive of the estate of the say Harris so devise during the  life of the wife and for what they have receive since her death and to pay  same accord to the former order and the defendant Kinven to be examine on  interrogatory touch his receipt and payment Reg lib a fol there appear former  to have be a strong lean in the court to equal division among the object of  the power unless a good reason give for the contrary Wareham v brown post vol  sir George crook case cite in astry v astry pre Chan but this appear not to be  now take as the rule of the court Kemp v Kemp Ves which see for the case and  doctrine on the head of illusory appointment et vide Pocklington v bayne bro  Ch Rep and case there cite Bristol v ware Ves jun Wilson v Piggott ibidem but  in case a sufficient reason appear on the face of the appointment a nominal  sum may be hold good in the case of a stranger appointor Spencer v Spencer Ves  and proof of such reason may perhaps be admit where it do not appear in the  case of parent and child ibidem so where a father appoint and give other  provision to the object exclude long v long Ves if the word of the power be to  such of the child as appointor shall think proper that it seem will give a  power to appoint to one only Kemp v Kemp ub sup et vide butcher v butcher Ves  at the roll it appear upon the whole with very few exception that the word of  a power to appoint a beneficial subject among certain object however large  will bind the appointor to dispose of the fund so that every appointee shall  have a substantial share although it may sometime be difficult to determine  what be a illusory appointment and what be not et notam the word of the decree  in the present case as to a equality of distribution be whereupon c his  lordship declare that case of distribution must be judge accord to the  circumstance thereof and if no variety in the circumstance the court will  distribute it in a equality but in this case it be plain the testator do  intend there shall be a equality among all his child r l at law a share  however little will be sufficient and the power must be execute accord to the  word if not it will be have such dict per master of the roll Kemp v Kemp Ves  see further on this subject box v whitbread Ves butcher v butcher v b