case Harkness versus bailey ante Eq Abr c S c vern wms land devise to one in  fee and afterward mortgage to the same person be a revocation in toto but if  mortgage to a stranger a revocation quoad the mortgage only Richard Bailey be  possess by way of mortgage of the remainder of a forfeit term for year of land  in Norfolk by his will in devise pound apiece to his three young child and the  like sum to the child his wife be then ensient with and if any of his child  die before or marriage their share to go to the survivor or survivor of they  and give the residue of his estate after the payment of his debt and legacy to  his wife Priscilla and make her sole executrix and die his wife be afterward  deliver of a daughter who together with two of the other three child all die  under eighteen and unmarried and the defendant be the only survive daughter  Priscilla the mother after her husband death purchase the inheritance and  precedent in chancery er p equity of redemption of these land in the name of  William Bayley her son in trust for her and her heir and this inheritance be  afterward convey to another in trust for the mother and her heir who afterward  take a conveyance of the inheritance to herself by which the inheritance seem  to be merge then the mother make her will that of June and thereby devise  these land to the defendant her daughter and her heir and afterward for secure  pound to the defendant wherein she stand indebt to her for her own and her  three sister legacy and interest and wherewith those precedent in chancery  land by the father will be Chargeable in the mother hand the mother together  with her son William Bayley join in a mortgage of these land to the defendant  the daughter for year with a proviso to be void on payment of pound per and to  the daughter during her mother life and the pound and interest within three  month after her death the defendant the daughter never execute this mortgage  or any counterpart thereof this mortgage be make the that of September and the  mother die the that of march William Bayley the brother be indebt to the  plaintiff in several sum of money due to they by bind make his will and  thereby devise all his real and personal estate after his debt pay to the  defendant his sister and her heir and assign for ever and there be a  deficiency of personal asset to satisfy their debt the plaintiff bring this  bill to subject these land to a sale for satisfaction of their debt and the  only question be whether this mortgage for year to the daughter be a  revocation of the devise thereof in fee to her by her mother will for if so  then the inheritance and equity of redemption subject to that mortgage descend  to William Bayley and by consequence be well subject by his will to the  payment of his debt or if this mortgage shall only be a revocation quoad the  term mortgage and the inheritance and equity of redemption continue well  devise to the daughter by her mother will as it be urge it ought and that the  mother intention in make this mortgage to her be only with design to secure  the pound she stand indebt to her not to revoke the devise thereof to her in  fee but it be decree to be a revocation of the devise in fee be make to some  person and therefore inconsistent with the devise as cro car cook and bullock  case though agree if the mortgage have be make precedent in chancery to a  stranger it have only be a revocation quoad the mortgage and the defendant be  decree to account for the profit from her mother death Vid Douglas do lessee  of sir William Gibbons Bart v pot and other where it be hold that if a  mortgagor devise the mortgage premise and afterward pay off the mortgage and  the mortgagee convey the legal estate in trust for the mortgagor such a  transfer of the legal estate shall not operate as a revocation of the will