Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/286

266 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. as his sister should think fit, and the devisee having married, the question was raised whether the execution of the power by her, as she was under coverture at the time, was to be considered as vahd. Lord Hardwicke said : * It is objected that a femme covert cannot execute a power, and that there are no words in the will authorizing her to do so ; but this is a power without an interest, and is improperly called a power, for, being a direction to a person who has the fee, it is rather a trust.' " Hearle v. Greenbank ^ was this : — " The legal estate was devised to trustees upon trust for an infant femme covert for her sole and separate use during her life, and upon trust to permit her by deed or writing executed in the presence of three or more witnesses, notwithstanding her coverture, to dispose of the estate as she should think fit, and the testator died leaving the femme covert his heir at law, and she, during the continuance of the coverture ^nd infancy, exercised the power by will. Lord Hardwicke, upon the question whether the power had been duly executed, observed, 'This is a power coupled with an ijiterest^ which is always considered different from naked powers.' " In Knapp v. Alvord,^ a power to sell personal property given to secure the donee of the power was held to be a power coupled with an interest. In Peter v. Beverly,^ a power in a will not accompanied by a devise of the legal estate was said to be a power coupled with an interest. The last English case on this point is that of In re Hannan's Express Gold Mining & Developing Co., Carmichael's Case, de- cided July 27, 1896,* which is as follows: — " P promoted a company for the purpose of purchasing from him and working a mining company. C signed an underwriting letter addressed to P, by which he agreed, in consideration of a commission, to subscribe for 1000 shares in his company. C further agreed that the agreement and application should be irrevocable, and notwithstanding any repudi- ation by him should be sufficient to authorize P to apply for shares on behalf of C, and the company to allot them. P by letter accepted these terms. " The authority given to P by the underwriting letter to apply for shares on behalf of P was an authority coupled with an interest and therefore not revocable. Lopez, L. J. , said : * The question that really arises is whether in this case it is an authority coupled with an interest. I think the answer is a very short and very complete one. What was the 1 I Vesey, 298. 9 10 Paige, 205 (N. Y. 1843). • 10 Peters, 235. * [1896] 2 Ch. 643.