case Cox versus HIGFORD October Eq can ab pl S c better state a copyhold be  forfeit for not repair whether equity will relieve plaintiff a Quaker amerce  for not come to the lord court and take the oath of fealty and after the  copyhold estate be present for be out of repair and then a forfeiture for not  repair in the Lord enter and prevail on the tenant to attorn a ejectment be  bring by the plaintiff the copyholder and then a rule of court that upon pay  cost and repair the copyholder shall have a account of profit and repair the  want of repair be only of a oxhouse set up by the tenant for S and a wainhouse  porter and Thomas cite issue whether waste with intent to commit a forfeiture  Cudmore and raven the court relieve the defendant a Quaker against a  forfeiture for not do suit and service Vernon chancery case Morley versus earl  of Derby the plaintiff relieve against a forfeiture in fall of timber bill  dismiss because the plaintiff neglect be not once or twice but for twenty year  together he refuse or neglect to do suit and service and repair the Lord may  lawful enter and have so do the tenant attorned a bill afterward bring and he  elect to go to law then a rule of court to pay cost and to repair but fail in  repair bill dismiss without cost Reg lib a fol there be mere a entry of  dismissal vide on this point Nash v Bart of Derby ante and case in not there  Davy v Hooper Vernon er report date case davy all versus hooper all Nov Eq can  ab pl pl S c pound be provide by settlement for the issue of the marriage in  such proportion as the husband shall appoint he die leave a daughter only and  make no appointment she shall have the pound two thousand five hundred pound  to be for the issue of the marriage in such proportion as William Davy shall  appoint he die leave only one daughter and make ho appointment yet the  daughter well entitle decree the pound to be raise Vernon chancery case er p  by article April make on his marriage with the defendant mary hooper mother  sir wm Davy agree that he will within one year after the marriage settle in  what manner or out of what land do not appear pound part of pound therein  mention to the use of such child or child as he shall have by mary his intend  wife in such manner as he the say sir William shall by write appoint the  defendant mary Hooper be the only child no settlement or appointment appear to  have be make and the decree as to this point be as to the pound his lordship  conceive that the neglect of the trustee in not call to have the same settle  accord to the say marriagearticle ought not to turn to the prejudice of the  say mary and as to the objection that sir William not have appoint or  apportion the say pound therefore the same do not arise such objection be of  no force or weight it go to vest a power in he to defeat the very intent of  the article and therefore upon the whole his lordship declare the say  plaintiff in a cross bill by Hooper and his wife mary Hooper to be well  entitle to the say pound and that she ought to be take and look upon to be a  creditor for the same with interest at the rate of per cent from the death of  sir William Davy her father note sir William Davy have on a second marriage  with the mother of the infant plaintiff by indenture of lease and release and  October convey his land in Devonshire and elsewhere to trustee for year to  commence a his death upon trust in it all out of the profit or by lease  mortgage or sale to raise pound apiece for each of the plaintiff the infant  for their portion Payable at eighteen and maintenance in the mean time and the  decree be make ut above upon the question raise between these party as to the  raise the pound for the defendant mary Hooper the daughter and only child of  the first marriage Reg lib a fol enter Davy v pollexfen affirm in dom proc bro  p c and the principle recognize in crook v brook ante p wit v Boddington bro  Ch Rep where jewel c give to the wife for life and then to such grandchild as  she shall appoint no appointment make decree to go equal for the general  doctrine on power of appointment vide Gibson v Kinven ante vol p and case cite  in not there