In favour of a Wife. Clifford v. Burlington, cited 2 P. Wms. 229. 2 Vern. 379. Fothergill v. vented by accident; for it would be unconscionable in the remainder-man to take advantage of these; provided the person having the power does all he 'can towards its execution. 2. It has been determined in several cases, that a covenant, in marriage articles, to settle a jointure under a power, on an intended wife, should be deemed a good execution of the power; because a wife is considered, in equity, as a purchaser for a valuable consideration, of her jointure, or whatever else is stipulated before marriage for her benefit. 3. Lord Clifford being tenant for life, with power to make a jointure, not exceeding 1,000l. a year, covenanted on his marriage with Lady A. Berkeley, to settle lands of 1,000l. a year on her; and accordingly after the marriage he settled part of the premises within the power on his lady for life, with a covenant that they were of the yearly value of 1,000 7. and afterwards died: but these lands being only of the yearly value of 400%., on a bill brought by the widow, there being lands of 1,000l. a year within the power, it was decreed, that a commission should be awarded to add lands to those formerly settled, so as to make up 1,000 7. a year. 4. A tenant for life, with a power of appointing a jointure of 1007. a year, appointed 1007. a year to his wife for her jointure, out of a particular estate; and covenanted, in case the value should be defective, to make it up out of his other estate. The estate being defective, the widow brought her bill to have it supplied out of the other estate. A decree was made accordingly; and it was held by the Lord Keeper, and the Master of the Rolls, that whenever a conveyance is made upon a good consideration, if there be any defect in the execution of it, the Court of Chancery has always supplied the defect, particularly in the case of a power, as where any circumstances were omitted in the execution of it: and one reason given was, because the circumstances were imposed only that the party might not be surprised in the execution of it; and it was further held, that payment of debts, provision for a wife and children, marriage, or purchases, were considerations for which the Court had supplied such defects. ; 2 P. Wms. 5. Gregory Alford settled land on himself for Alford v. life, remainder to his wife for life, remainder to his Alford, cited first and other sons in tail, remainder to Francis 230. Alford for life, &c.; with power to Francis Alford, after the death of Gregory and his wife, or any aftertaken wife of Gregory, to settle so much of the premises, not exceeding 100l. a year, in jointure to a wife. Francis Alford, in the lifetime of Gregory, covenanted, in consideration of marriage, to settle lands of 1007. a year upon his then intended wife and afterwards Gregory Alford and his wife died without issue: and then Francis Alford died without issue, whereby the premises went to the remainderThe widow of Francis Alford, having brought her bill against the remainder-man, to make good the jointure; it was decreed by Sir John Trevor M. R., on considering many precedents, that the covenant to make this jointure was a good execution of the power; and that the wife was well entitled to the 100l. a year, and to all the arrears from her husband's death. man. It is observable, that Francis Alford entered into this covenant in the lifetime of Gregory, so that it might be reckoned a sort of strain to call this an execution of the power, before the very commencement thereof; but it showed how much the powers and Coventry v. Coventry, Max. in Eq. 2 P. Wms. 122. the execution of them were favoured, when for a valuable consideration. 6. Lord Coventry being tenant for life under his father's will, with a power, by any writing under his hand and seal, to settle any part of the estates comprised in the will, not exceeding 500l. a year, on any woman he should marry, for her jointure; so as such wife brought a portion equivalent to such a jointure. Lord Coventry, in consideration of a marriage, and 10,000l. portion, by articles previous to the marriage, covenanted with trustees, according to the power given to him by his father's will, or otherwise, to settle lands of the value of 500l. a year upon his intended wife, as her jointure. The marriage was solemnized; and soon after Lord Coventry went to his country seat, and gave the articles to his steward, with direc tions to look over his rental, and find out an unincumbered part of his estate to settle as a jointure. A part of the estate being fixed upon, and a particular made thereof, a settlement and appointment of it was accordingly drawn and engrossed, and left with Lord Coventry's steward for execution: from various accidents the execution of this deed was delayed, and Lord Coventry died without having executed it. On a bill brought by the widow against the remainder-man, under the will, and the personal representatives of Lord Coventry, the principal question was, whether the covenant contained in the marriage articles should be deemed a good execution of the power in equity. Lord Macclesfield, Sir Joseph Jekyll, M. R., Baron Price and Baron Gilbert, were clearly of opinion, that the covenant contained in the marriage articles operated, in equity, as an execution of the power; and a charge and lien on the remainder. And the Court declared, that the deed of settlement having been prepared and engrossed by the direction of Lord Coventry, the same ought to be taken to be a specification of the lands to be settled on the plaintiff; and the lands therein mentioned ought to be bound thereby, and by the marriage articles, although the said deeds of settlement were not actually signed and sealed by Lord Coventry. 7. A power expressly directed to be executed by deed, will, in equity, be deemed to be well executed a will, where it is in favour of a wife. Tollett, 2 P. 8. A husband, by virtue of a settlement made upon Tollett v. him by an ancestor, was tenant for life, with re- Wms. 488. mainder to his first and other sons in tail male, with a power to the husband to make a jointure on his wife, by a deed under his hand and seal. The husband having made no provision for his wife, and being in the Isle of Man, by his last will, under his hand and seal, devised part of the lands within the power to his wife for her life. It was objected, that this conveyance, being by a will, was not warranted by the power, which directed that it should be by deed; and a will was a voluntary conveyance, and therefore not to be aided in a court of equity. But Sir Joseph Jekyll said, this was a provision for a wife who had none before; and within the same reason as a provision for a child, not before provided for. And as a court of equity would, had this been the case of a copyhold devised, have supplied the want of a surrender; so where there was a defective execution of a power, either for payment of debts, or provision for a wife or children unprovided for, he would supply any defect of this nature. The legal estate being in trustees, they were decreed to convey Holt v. Holt, an estate to the widow for life, in the lands devised to her by her husband's will. 2 P. Wins. 648. In favour of a Husband. Cotter v. Wms. 622. 9. A court of equity will also supply a defect in an appointment made by a wife, in favour of an intended husband. 10. A copyhold estate was surrendered by C. Layer Layer, 2 P. and Elizabeth his wife, to the use of Elizabeth for life, and afterwards to such uses as she, by any writing, or by her last will, attested by three witnesses, should appoint. Upon the death of C. Layer, Elizabeth did, by deed or writing attested only by two witnesses, upon a marriage agreed to be had between her and one Cotter, covenant to surrender the premises, to the use of her intended husband and herself, and the heir of Cotter; who covenanted on his part to settle an annuity of 30 7. a year on the said Elizabeth for life. It was objected, that these articles by Elizabeth Layer, to settle the copyhold premises on her second husband, were attested by two witnesses only, so not pursuant to the power, and consequently void. But Lord King said, these articles being for a valuable consideration, namely, that of marriage, though not in strictness pursuant to the power, he should supply the want of circumstances; in the same manner as he would the want of a surrender. Sergeson v. "Sealy, 2 Atk. 412. 11. William Pitt married Mrs. Speke, and by the marriage articles it was covenanted, that if there should be one son only, and no younger children, and the wife should survive the husband, she should have the power of disposing of 4,000 l. by deed or will, executed in the presence of three witnesses, to any person she should appoint; and this sum was to be charged upon the real estate of the husband. Mr. Pitt died, leaving only one son, and Mr. Speke married the widow; but before her second marriage, |