Richmond daily register. (Richmond, Madison County, Ky.) 1917-1978, 1922-03-15

"a general power is understood q
right to appoint to whomsocvcr
the doncc plcascs. BY a spcci9'
or particular power is meant that
the doucc Is restricted 10 object
or bcncliciaric> designated in The
instrument creating the power.
The only fact. aS VIC understand
'uuuscl. upon which it l. claimed
that the power possessed by Mrs.
Irvine wa, special one Is that
The method provided 10y the don
cor ior executing il was limited Co.
q tc>tamcutary power. Bat. ac
r1rdiuc 90 the rule for dctcrmiu-
ing the difference between the
different classes ut power THAI
TACT has nu weight. and. va q uuu
Der oi eases. supra. from ;bj.
court the authority 10 execute
the power only by will was iu.
VOWED and it was not held That r.
became a special power ou ac-
count ui that TACT y special ur
particular power as we have
seen. /, one that Is restricted hy
The duucc tu certain designate ]
objects property. or hcnchciar
e., or elias, oi bcuoiciarics and
the question !, not affected in ihc
least Joy the method provided Tor
the execution OF tho power. Mrs.
Irvine under Tie will at her hu,
band was empowered in the CN.
plauatury clause oi her husband ,
viii To either approve. allcs CO..
change it either in part cor The
whole cNccpt a. Co the portion
devised Co M, halt brother, John
:, Harris. She was not restrict
cd therein either rs Co the subject
matter oi the power cor the bcuc-
hciarics whom she might select
and there can bc uu doubt q, 60
an The property 10 which the pow
cr attached she possessed a gen
cral and not q special or qualified
one. Her will was sufficient
JiuCludiug the rc,iduaFy clause
90 cover and pas, title 20 all the
property over which she had tc>-
tamcutary power. ~ which case.
under the provisions OF section
1915 supra. the general power oi
appointment given her by her
husbands will will he deemed e.
have been exercised, unless a CON
trary intention appears from her
will and thi, brings us To- a CON
,ideration of the contention ID
uf appcllcc'> counsel.
We must confess our inability
to grasp the very earnest argu-
mcut oi learned counsel in sup
port at thi, contention. ON the ,
contrary. a. we CoustIuc the viii {
ui Ms. Irvine. it was her eX-
pressed intention to exercise thc1
power given her by her husband I
IN the making OF her will and the I
expression 81 my property"
found in some parts OF her will. !
does not initiate against that (
conclusion for. - we have here /
toiore seen. she regarded her /
husbands will a. dealing with q |
large portion OF property right
iull belonging To her and as max I
ing "a return OF all To me" Att
the very beginning of her will
she not only refers to the power. ]
but says And ! shall proceed TOT
do 50 in this writing" " wei
have seen. her will. including the J.
residuary clause. was sufficient to
pass title To all OF the property
ii it had all belonged to her in
her own right. Her husband had
given to appellant valuable
piece OF property in the city OF
Richmond. which was their home.
and contained about 10 acres. She
changed her husbands DISPOSE
ton OF that property and provid-
ed that ii be converted into a
hospital. The appellant was ?
favorite nephew OF herself and
husband. and it would be but ma
tural that she would be inclined
TO compensate him ia her VII for
having deprived HIM therein OF