with this power, not only does she lose the influence

which the possession of it may give her over her
husband, but she is deprived of the power to be-
queath the smallest legacy, and the fund is given
over to relations whom she may not think fit objects,
and divided among them in shares of which she may
not approve. If, indeed, the property settled on her
side emanates not from herself, but from her father
or other relation, the case is somewhat different from
that of her own absolute property. But, even in
this case,
it seems to be in the highest degree de-
sirable that she should have the power to dispose of
it by will; the possession of such a power may give
her considerable influence over a husband insensible
to better motives, and will, in all events, enable her
to make such a disposition of the property as cir-
cumstances render desirable at her own death. The
power, in this latter case, is sometimes given with a
restriction to members of her own family as its ob-
jects. This, however, is not to be recommended,
although better than the absolute exclusion of the
power.

The object of the power and trust we have been discussing seems very often to be misunderstood by solicitors. It is a thing of frequent occurrence to be instructed to make them apply whether the wife dies in her husband's lifetime or not. But this is a great mistake; their only object is, to exclude the husband surviving the wife from taking her property as her administrator. If he dies first, his right never comes into existence; and, on every principle of

Settlement of property to be appointed to

the settlor.

-of money secured on land,

justice and common sense, the wife's own property should be made to revert to her absolutely. If not, she is worse off than if she had not married, and is absolutely precluded from settling her property on a second marriage. Even if the property emanate not from her, but from her family, and they object to give it to her absolutely, still she should have a power to settle it on a subsequent marriage. Otherwise the property is completely tied up, and no irrevocable disposition of it can be made by the person for whom and whose children it was intended as a provision.

If a settlement is to be made of property to be appointed to the settlor, in pursuance of a particular and not a general power, the appointment should be made by a separate deed of even date, executed previously to the settlement. An appointment made in the settlement itself, by the direction of the settlor, might, indeed, be good (a) in equity, but would be very informal; the only proper and safe course is, to appoint to the settlor before the execution of the settlement, and make him or her convey or assign, by the settlement, to the intended trustees (b).

When money secured on land is about to be setand of land to tled, the money, and the land on which it is secured, should be vested in the trustees of the settlement by

be treated as personalty.

(a) Limbard v. Grote, 1 My. & Kee. 1; Thornton v. Bright, 2 My. & Cra. 230; Goldsmid v. Goldsmid, 2 Hare, 1,

(b) See infra, vol. iv., SETTLEMENTS, Prec. ii. p. 330; and Prec. v. p. 356,

a separate deed, executed previously to the settlement (a). And the same observation applies to land which is not intended to be limited in strict settlement, but to be divided among the children as personal estate. Land intended to be so settled should be conveyed to the trustees in trust for sale (b), by a deed executed previously to the settlement.

notes.

Many points of practical importance in preparing Reference to settlements are discussed in the notes to the Precedents of Settlements (c); and the general law on the subject will be found in the authorities and cases there referred to.

(a) See the reasons at length, fra, vol. iv. p. 341, n. (a).

vol. iv. p. 333, n. (a).

(6) See the observations, in

(c) Infra, vol. iv.

CHAPTER VII.

OF WILLS.

Treatises on the law of wills.

Arrangement of the clauses of wills.

Introductory and revocatory clause.

THE law, with respect to wills, is so extensive, and embraces so many points, that it is out of the question to give even the slightest sketch of it in a work of this description. This, however, is the less to be regretted, because it has been made the subject of several separate treatises of great merit, which are indispensable to the conveyancer, and are in the hands of every one (a).

Several practical observations on framing wills are given in the notes to the precedents (b), and the following remarks on the arrangement of the different parts of wills will, it is hoped, be found useful to the draftsman.

A will should commence with the name and description of the testator, coupled with a declaration that the present is his last will, and a revocation of all other wills. It was formerly the practice for the testator to direct the payment of his funeral and testamentary expenses, but this is incorrect. If he de

(a) Powell on Devises, by Jarman; Bythewood's Conveyancing, by Jarman, vol. x.; Jarman on Wills; Williams on the

Law of Executors and Administrators; and Roper on Legacies, are the principal works referred to. (b) Vol. v.

sires to charge them on some particular fund, or on his real estate, he should do so expressly, and provide the requisite machinery for effectuating the intention; but if he means nothing more than that his funeral and testamentary expenses and debts should be paid out of his general personal estate, there is no occasion to direct this to be done, because it must be done by the general rule of law, whether the testator wills it or not.

and legacies.

Immediately after the introductory clause should Specific devises be placed the specific devises and bequests, i. e. the devises of specified real estate, and the bequests of specified chattels. This, however, does not universally apply to estates or chattels which it is intended to settle in strict settlement, and which it will often be found more convenient to place in a different part of the will.

cies and annu

ities.

Next follow the pecuniary legacies and annuities; Pecuniary legathe simplest first. And here it may be well to remark, that when a specified sum of money is directed by the instructions (as is often the case) to be appropriated by the executors or trustees out of the money arising from the conversion into money of the testator's general residuary estate, and settled upon certain trusts, it will be found by far the most convenient plan to bequeath this sum of money independently as a legacy to the trustees, upon the trusts desired, and leave it to be satisfied out of the residuary estate, under the general directions to pay all legacies thereout. This not only makes the settlement of the legacy itself clearer, but prevents the