CONN VS. CONN. 215

children might be born to him, and has, upon the face of the
instrument, made provision for only such as were living at the
date of the will, it is impossible to supply the defect, and give
such afterborn child any provision, notwithstanding the anxi-
ety of the court to do so. 1 Roper on Legacies, 146, 3 ves.,
611.

In this case, the testator has described the children by name,
among whom the estate was to be divided upon the happening
of either contingency upon which the estate to his widow was
to determine; and, it is impossible, therefore, to bring this
posthumous son within the description. He must, therefore, be
excluded from the distribution.

[As to the second question, the Chancellor said;]

These creditors of Mrs. Elizabeth Hall, rest their right to be
paid their several claims out of the proceeds of her real estate,
upon the ground, that by the marriage contract between her and
her husband, Hall, her estate was settled to her separate use;

and there can be no doubt that a feme covert, with respect to
her separate property, will be regarded in a court of equity, to
some extent at least, as a feme sole, and may dispose of it with-
out the assent of her trustee, unless she is specially restrained
by the instrument by which she acquires the separate estate.
Eminent judges have differed, it is true, with regard to the pre-
cise limits of this power. Some insisting, that the mode of dis-
position pointed out in the instrument (and none other) must
be pursued; whilst others have held, that even though a par-
ticular mode is specifically pointed out, any other may be adopt-
ed, unless the instrument itself restrains the wife to the particu-
lar mode. Methodist Church vs. Jaques, 3 Johns. Ch. Rep.,
77; Jaques vs. Methodist Church, 17 Johns. Rep., 548.

As, however, in this case no .particular mode of disposing of
the property settled upon Mrs. Hall is pointed out, but she is,
by the instrument, left at liberty to dispose of it as if she was
a feme sole, there is no necessity for expressing any opinion
upon the point in regard to which the Court of Errors and.the
Chancery Court of New York appear to have differed.