Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-332-Appointed-property-as-assets.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:41:16+00:00

Document:
64. Davies v. Huguenin, 1 Hem. & M. 730; Isaac v. Hughes, L. R. 9 Eq. 191; In re Evered, (1910) 1 Ch. 147.
65-66. Sugden, Powers, 93; See Edward Clere's Cas, 6 Co. Rep. 17b; Maundrell v. Maund-rell, 10 Ves. 24.
68. Hetzel v. Barber, 69 N. Y. 1; Jennings v. Conboy, 73 N. Y. 230.
69. Farwell, Powers, 38, citing Cross v. Hudson, 3 Bro. C. C. 30; Mortlock v. Buller, 10 Ves. 292.
70. Holmes v. Coghill, 7 Ves. 499. 12 Ves. 206; Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 25 L. Ed. 908; Patterson v. Lawrence, 83 Ga. 703, 7 L. R. A. 143, 10 S. E. 355; Gil-man v. Bell, 99 111. 144; Crawford v. Langmaid, 171 Mass. 309, 50 N. E. 606; Montague v. Silsbee, 218 Mass. 107, 105 N. E. 611; Ryan v. Mahan, 20 R. I. 417, 39 Atl. 893.
71. An appointee by will has been decided to be a volunteer, although the appointment is made in pursuance of a covenant executed for a pecuniary consideration. In re Lawley (1902) 2 Ch. 673, 799; Beyfus v. Lawley (1903) App. Cas. 411; Vinton v. Pratt, 228 Mass. 468, 117 N. E. 919.
That the doctrine making the appointed property assets does not apply in favor of creditors as against a bona fide purchaser from a volunteer appointee, see Patterson v. Lawrence, 83 Ga 703, 7 L. R. A. 143, 10 S. E. 355.
72. Sugden, Powers, 474; Far-well, Powers, 286; Holmes v. Coghill, 7 Ves. 499; O'Grady v.
Wilmot (1916) 2 App. Cas. 231. 246, 247, 270; Brandies v. Cochrane, 112 U. S. 344, 28 L. Ed. 760; Manson v. Duncanson, 166 U. S. 533, 546, 41 L. Ed. 1105; Knowles v. Dodge, 1 Mackey. (D. C.) 66; Gilman v. Bell, 99 111. 144; Clapp v. Ingraham, 126 Mass. 466; Johnson v. Cushing, 15 , N. H. 288; Tallmadge v. Sill, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 34; Rogers v. Hinton, 62 N. Car. 101, 63 N. Car. 78; Freeman's Adm'r v. Butters, 94 Va. 406, 26 S. E. 845.
The appointed property is not to be subjected to payment of debts if there is other property sufficient for the purpose. Patterson v. Lawrence, 83 Ga. 703, 7 L. R. A. 143, 10 S. E. 355; White v. Massachusetts Inst, of Technology, 17 Mass. 84, 50 N. E. 512; Tuell v. Harley, 206 Mass. 65, 91 N. E. 1013; Fleming v. Buchanan, 3 De G., M. & G. 976.
The doctrine obviously has no application to special powers, that is, powers to be exercised in favor of a particular class of persons. Price v. Cherbonnier, 103 Md. 107, 63 Atl. 209.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.