Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/284

264 264 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. A power of attorney to receive rents is not a power coupled with an interest.^ In the case of Hunt v. Rousmanier, it was decided not only that the power under consideration in that case was not coupled with an interest, but that powers not coupled with an interest do not survive the makers of them. It is to be borne in mind, however, that while this decision is in general terms, it is by virtue of the context to be limited to common law powers and does not refer either to powers under the Statute of Uses or to equitabfe powers. In substance, therefore, the decision in Hunt v. Rousmanier is that where the title or estate in property or in a chose in action is transferred by way of security, the title or estate survives the death of the grantor or assignor, and the security continues good after such death ; but that where a common law power over property or a chose in action is given by way of security, the power ceases on the death of the maker of the power. The first branch of the de- cision is of course a truism, and the stress of the opinion is on the latter point. The ruling in Hunt v. Rousmanier has been followed in many of the American cases. Where there is a power of sale contained in a mortgage, it has been held to be a power coupled with an interest.^ In Houghteling v. Marvin,^ it was decided that where a mere power is given to a creditor to receive a debt as a security to him but there was no assignment, the power is revoked by the death of the principal. In McGriff v. Porter,* it is said that a patent to enter upon the lands of the principal and to take and sell the stores given as a security is not a power coupled with an interest, and is revoked by the death of the principal. Where A gave a power to prosecute a suit for lands and agreed to give B one half of the proceeds of the land, and gave him a mortgage to secure this agreement, it was held that the power was not coupled with an interest.^ Where one having a power of sale in a vessel with power of sub- 1 Willes's Reports, 105, note. 2 Bergen v. Bennett, ist Caine's Cases, 1804, per Kent, J. ; see also Conners v. Holland, 113 Mass. 50. 6 Gilbert v. Holmes, 64 111. 549 ; see alsoTharp v. Brennigan, 14 Iowa, 251 ; Cham- bers V. Seay, 73 Ala. 373; Walker v. Dennison, 86 111. 142.
 * 7 Barbour, 412.
 * 5 Fla. 373.