By this phrase is meant a right or power to do some act, together with an interest in the subject matter on which the power is to be exercised. It is distinguished from a naked power, which is a mere authority to act, not accompanied by any interest of the donee in the subject matter of the power. Is it an interest in the subject on which the power is to be exercised, or is it an interest in that which is produced by the exercise of the power? We hold it to be clear that the interest which can protect a power after the death of a person who creates it must be an interest in the thing itself. In other words, the power must be engrafted on an estate in the thing. The words themselves would seem to import this meaning. “A power coupled with an interest” is a power which accompanies or is connected with an interest. The power and the interest are united in the same person. But, if we are to understand by the word “interest” an interest in that which is to be produced by the exercise of the power, then they are never united. The power to produce the interest must be exercised, and by its exercise is extinguished. The power ceases when the interest commences, and therefore cannot, in accurate law language, be said to be “coupled” with it Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat 203, 5 L. Ed. 589. And see Missouri v. Walker, 125 U. S. 339, 8 Sup. Ct. 929, 31 L. Ed. 769; Griffith v. Maxfield, 66 Ark. 513, 51 S. W. 832; Johnson v. Johnson, 27 S. C 309, 3 S. E. 606, 13 Am. St. Rep. 636; Yeates v. Pryor, 11 Ark. 78; Alworth v. Seymour, 42 Minn. 526, 44 N. W. 1030; Hunt v. Ennis, 12 Fed. Cas. 915.