case HITCHINS against basset distinguish Willet v Sandford Ves sen e r apply  Harwood v Goodwright wm Bl refer to Thomas do Jones v Evans east apply  Dickinson v Stidolph c b n S principle explain and apply nawab sahib mirza v  Mussammat umda Khanam lr ind App if a testator make two will and a special  verdict find the first will in haec word and also that he afterward make  another will but of this second will the juror do not know the content the  last will thus find be no revocation of the former will S c comb S c show S c  salk show Cas parliament S c hard vern vern Prec Ch comens Mod pale yellow e r  Peer wms Cowp ejectment upon the demise of Mr Nosworthy the jury find a  special verdict the substance of which be that sir Henry killigrew be seize in  fee of the land in question in the county of Cornwall and be so seize do in  the year devise the same to mrs Berkley for life remainder over to Henry  killigrew in tail that he make mrs Berkley executrix of his will which be find  in haec word that afterward in the year the say sir Henry killigrew make other  will it write but what be contain in the say last mention will a swearer  inside ignorant that sir Henry killigrew in the year die seize of those land  that mrs Berkley and Mr killigrew convey the same to Mr Nosworthys father who  heir he be and that the defendant sir William Basset be cousin and heir to sir  Henry killigrew c modern the question upon this special verdict be whether the  make of this last will be a revocation of the former or not Mr finch in this  term and Maynard sergeant in Michaelmas term follow argue for the plaintiff  that it be not a revocation in their argument it be admit that a will in its  nature be revocable at all time but then it must be either by a express or  imply revocation that the make of this latter will can be intend to be a imply  revocation of the former for if so then the land must also be suppose to be  devise contrary to the express disposition in the first will and that will be  to add to the record which find that what the last will be inside ignorant it  be possible that a subsequent will may be make so as not to destroy but  consist with the former for the testator may have several parcel of land which  he may devise to many person by diverse will and yet all stand together a man  may likewise by a subsequent will revoke part and confirm the other part of a  former will and therefore admit there be such a will in this case it be still  more natural that it shall confirm than revoke the other if the testator have  purchase new land and bad devise the same by a subsequent will no person will  affirm that to be a revocation of the former will when a man have make a  disposition of any modern er p part of his estate it be a good will as to that  part so be likewise the disposal of every other part they be all several will  though take all together they be a entire disposition of the whole estate  nothing appear here to the contrary but that the Iatter will may be only a  devise of his personal estate or a confirmation of the former which the law  will not allow to be destroy without ail express revocation the case of coward  v martial cro Elizabeth see also show and Gilbert on will a be much to this  purpose it be a devise in fee to his young son and in another will after the  testator marriage to a second wife he devise the same land to his wife for  life pay yearly to his young son twenty shilling and it be the opinion of  Anderson and Glanville justice that both these will may stand together and  that the one be not a revocation of the other because it appear by the last  will that he only intend to make a provision for his wife but not to alter the  devise to his son modern so where a man have two son by several venture  Hodgkinson v wood cro car see also   light b I   b and devise the land to his  old son for life and to the heir male of his body and for default of such  issue to the heir male of his second son and the heir male of their body  remainder to his own right heir and then make a lease of thirty year to his  young son to commence after the death of the testator the young son enter and  surrender the term to his elder brother who make a lease to the defendant and  then die without issue afterward the young brother enter and avoid this lease  make by his brother it be hold that the lease thus make to he be not a  revocation of the devise of the inheritance to his brother though it be to  commence at the same time in which the devise of the inheritance be to take  effect but it be a revocation quoad the term only that the elder brother shall  not enter during that time for the devise shall not be revoke without express  word and that though the testator have depart with the whole fee without  reserve a estate for life to himself yet the law create such a estate in he  till the future use shall commence and in such case the right heir can take by  purchase but by descent so that here the inheritance in feesimple be not vest  in the elder brother by descent for then the lease which he make will be  execute out of the fee and the young brother will be bind thereby but in the  case at the bar there be no colour of a revocation first upon the nature of  the verdict to which nothing can be add neither can it be diminish for  whatever be find must be positive and not doubtful because ail attaint lie if  the verdict be false therefore the court can take notice of that which the  jury have not find now here the entry of the judgement be who bed et hearing  et per curian hic satis comprehension but what can be read or hear where  nothing appear the case in the yearbook of the Richard pl come not up to this  question it be a action of trespass for the take of his good the defendant  plead that the good appertain to one Robert strong who before the suppose  trespass devise the same to he and make he executor c the plaintiff reply that  the say strong make his last will and do constitute he executor modern and  upon a demurrer to this replication because he have not traverse that the  defendant be executor it be argue for the plaintiff that this last will be a  revocation of the former for though there be no express word of revocation yet  by the very make another will the law revoke the former and to prove this two  instance be then give videlicet that if a man devise his land to two and by  another will give it to one of they and die he to who it be devise by the last  will shall have it so likewise where the testator by one will give land to his  son and by another will devise the same again to his wife and then make a  alienation and take back a estate to himself and die in all assize bring  between the widow and the son he be compel by the court to show that it be his  father intention that he shall have the land otherwise the last devisee will  be entitle to it now both these instance be not sufficient to evince that the  last will in this case be a revocation of that under which the plaintiff claim  because those will be contradictory to each other for by one the land be  devise to the son and by the other to the wife they both have their existence  at one and the same time and it appear they be make to distinct purpose but  here nobody can tell what be design or intend by the testator in this  subsequent modern er p will and therefore it have be hold Eyre case cro car  and see Gilbert on will Godolphin Perkins b a that where a man devise legacy  to his two brother and afterward in his sickness be ask to leave legacy to his  say brother he reply that he will leave they nothing but devise a small legacy  to his godson and die this discourse be set down in a codicil which together  with the will be prove in common form this codicil be not a revocation of the  legacy give to the brother because the testator take no notice of the will  which he have make in the time of his health and non constat what he intend by  these word which be set down in the codicil if therefore doubtful word shall  not make a revocation of a former will a strong a subsequent will especial  when the content of such will do not appear shall not revoke a former it be  argue for the defendant the only objection be that a Iatter will be make and  it not appear to the jury what be contain in that will it can be no revocation  because no express word of revocation can be find or any thing which be  contradictory to the first modern will and without the one or the other a  former will can be revoke but this be contrary to all the authority in the  booksLindwood Swinburn part sect yearbook Henry pl wentworth office of  executor a which show that a testament which be good in the beginning may  become void by the make of a subsequent will by word of revocation or by word  contradict each other for in such case it be not doubt but the first will be  revoke but the meaning must be that by the very make of a Iatter will the  first be become void this may be collect from the nature of a will which a man  have power to alter in part or in all at any time during his life but when he  make a new will it must be presume that he declare his whole mind in it for if  his intention be to alter any part the law have appoint a proper instrument  for that purpose which be a codicil but when he make other will it be a sign  that he intend nothing of his former will shall take any effect when he have  so easy a method to alter it in part every subsequent act of the testator show  that he intend a revocation either by word or deed and there be great reason  why it shall be so because every revocation of a will be in the nature of  restitution to the heir it can be deny but that a will may be revoke by word  without write before the make of the statute against fraud c as if a man shall  say that he will alter his will when he come to such a place and he shall die  before he come thither this be a revocation roll Abr dyer b see also Mod Mod  Mod b but it never be yet controvert that a revocation may be by deed as if a  man devise land to another and afterward make a feoff to the use of his will  this be always hold a revocation Hussey case roll Abr c so it be if land which  be well give by a will be afterward by another will devise to the poor of the  parish though this last will be void frenchs case roll Abr d because the  devisees have not a capacity to take yet it be a revocation of the first will  and shall a will which be lose be of less authority than such which be void it  be not deny but that there may be a subsequent will which may not contradict  the first so be coward be case coward v marshal cro Elizabeth e where both  will appear to be consistent but that be not parallel with this because the  jury have find that the testator make other will which word other import a  distinct will from the former modern it be agree also that a man may make many  will and that they may stand together and it must also be agree that such be  but partial will because they be but piece of the whole though write in  several paper but when it be find in general that other will be make it must  natural be intend of his whole estate the case in the yearbook of Richard the  three yearbook Richard pl a be a authority in point where in trespass the  defendant justify the take of the good by virtue of a will by which they be  devise to he and of which will he be make executor the plaintiff modern er p  reply that the testator make another will and thereby do constitute he  executor and this be hold a good replication without a traverse that the  defendant be executor because by the make of the second will the other be void  in law and therefore the show that he be executor be not to avoid the first  will which the law adjudge to be of no force but to make to himself a title to  the good take out of his possession if a man shall make twenty codicil without  date they may all stand together but if he make two will without date they be  both void the reason be because by the make of the Iatter will the first be  destroy and it be uncertain which be the last rather than the rule of  revocation shall be break they adjudge both to be void it can be reasonable  object that this Iatter will may devise the same land to the same person for  why shall a man be think so vain beside if it be so the plaintiff shall have  claim under that will but this can be the same will because it be contrary to  the verdict which have not find it to be idem but other will beside it be in  the case of a heir who shall not be disinherit by a intendment that the late  will be the same with the first neither can the statute f will Henry c and  Henry c b have any influence upon this matter it be true at the commonlaw no  land can be devise by a will but now by the statute of Henry c and Henry c  land c in socage may be devise by will and if hold in knight service then only  two part in three see car c c but it must be by the last will Godolphin d now  how can any man say that this shall be a devise of the land by the last will  of the testator when the jury find he make other will the content whereof be  not necessary to be show because the defendant claim as heir and not as  executor modern it must not be intend that this will shall confirm or stand  with the other because the law be otherwise and therefore if the plaintiff  will have support his will by which he claim he ought to show the other will  by which it must appear that nothing be contradictory to it or that it confirm  the first but if presumption shall be admit it must be in favour of the heir  for nothing shall be presume to disinherit himSee den v gaskin Cowp e  afterward in Trinity term in the five year of William mary judgement be give  for the plaintiff a writ of error be bring in the house of peer to reverse  that judgement but it be affirm the reason give by the judge be that it be not  find that any land be devise by this second will and therefore it may for any  thing that appear to the contrary be consistent with the first will and where  the matter stand indifferent the court will not suppose a revocation of a will  solemnly make but hall chief baron hold that a second substantive independent  will though it do not express import a revocation of a former will nor pass  any land yet in construction of law it will amount to a revocation SC hard SC  show p c in the case Goodright on demise of Rolfe v Harwood Hilary term Geo  where in a special verdict it be find that the testator make a will in the  year wherein he devise real and personal estate to a and that in the year he  make another will wherein the disposition make to a be different from the  disposition in the will of but in what particular be unknown but that the  juror do not find that the testator cancel the will make in or that the  defendant destroy the same and what be become of it they be altogether  ignorant the court of common plea except Blackstone justice hold that this  second will be a revocation of the former will to but on a writ of error to  the king bench this judgement be reverse on the authority of the above case of  Hitchins v Bassett black Rep and on appeal to the house of lord the judgement  of the court of king bench be affirm brown parliament case see also Willet v  Sandford vezey Powel on devise Harwood v Goodright Cowp dougl a modern er p