ambler case parson against LANOE see in the good of dobson l r p d in the good  of smith l r p d a will make on the eve of a journey abroad under some word  use in the will hold a contingent will and avoid by the testator return  Sinclaire v hone Ves see in Johnstone v Johnstone Phil and collateral proof of  his afterward take notice of the will can be admit unless some act be do to  republish the will lib Reg b foe S c Ves will in chancery that Jan the word of  the will that July I Charles de Lanoe of do make and appoint this to be my  last will and testament in manner follow I e imprimis in case I shall die  before I return from the journey I intend God Willing short to undertake for  Ireland my will and desire be that my house and land at far hill and all the  furniture and appurtenants thereto belong be all sell after cc my decease as  soon as convenient can be and out of the money thereby arise all my debt and  funeral charge be pay item I give and bequeathe to my godson cc t b pound  towards purchase a better post than what he now enjoy to be pay he out of the  money arise as aforesaid item after all my debt legacy and funeral charge  shall be pay and discharge I give leave and bequeathe all the rest and residue  of the money arise from the aforesaid sale and all other my estate both real  and personal good and chattel whatsoever whereof I stand possess or shall be  entitle to at the time of my decease to my wife m Lanoe and her heir for ever  and last I do hereby revoke and make void all former will by I make and do  declare this to be my only true and lawful last will and testament and he  appoint his wife executrix the testator then be marry but have no child he  afterward return from Ireland and have several child first question whether  the alteration of these circumstance be a imply revocation of the will  solicitor general one circumstance material the testator in his last illness  tell the person attend he that they will find his will in such a place and  they do find the will in he very place he describe be the will make before his  go to Ireland ambler this alteration of the circumstance such as the birth of  the child do not amount to a imply revocation though there be a case of lugg v  lugg in salk to that purport but the subsequent case be contrary such as comb  v comb at the delegate and ware v Philips at the delegate that November will  date have his first child and several other child yet hold no revocation and  Mr baron carter who attend at the commission cite a case of Noel v Noel and  another case of a devise to a common woman and testator afterward marry  another person and have child yet hold not a revocation Lord chancellor it  will have be very hard to have bring I over to that opinion solicitor general  another case before your lordship of Maggott v Maggott Mr Wilbraham for the  defendant to prove this a imply revocation as to the sale of real estate cite  cook v Oakley wms and brown v Thompson Eq Cas Abr that alteration of  circumstance amount to a imply revocation as well in the case of a real as of  a personal estate for the statute of fraud extend not to imply revocation Lord  Hardwicke chancellor question arise on the will the testator be colonel of a  regiment go to the army he have two child after his return a son and daughter  testator die in it appear he have this will by he and direct to the place to  find it and no evidence of another bill bring to have satisfaction for his  legacy of pound and real estate charge with it sell and to have a contract  perform for the sale of it one defendant the infant ambler general question  whether this instrument or will be still subsist and this depend on two  consideration ambler er p saint whether this disposition by his will be a  contingent one depend on testator die before his return d whether the  alteration of circumstance as to his child who will be otherwise disinherit  will amount to a revocation as to the first I be of opinion the disposition be  a contingent provisional one and I think no part be intend to take effect  except he have die before his return this be to be consider in two light saint  whether the word in case c make the whole will conditional or dly only that  particular gift so which immediate follow to be sure if a man make a will  entire conditional as if a man say in case I do not return from Ireland I make  this my will this be no will if he do return and ought not to be prove in the  ecclesiastical court like the case in Swinb of make a executor if he return  from Venice though this be not the case here in express word yet it be admit  that this make the devise as to the sale conditional and it be not to be  dispute and a man may make only a particular devise conditional the question  be whether the whole disposition depend on this contingency or only that  particular part which relate to the sale if only to that part all the testator  real and personal estate will pass to the wife and nothing fail but the sale I  be of opinion that that construction can be make and that the whole will or  instrument depend on the condition of his return the word be imprimis c ambler  the legacy to plaintiff depend on the sale so connect with that condition it  be admit legacy to another depend on the same and so the residuary clause all  the rest and residue of the money arise by the sale so the whole disposition  be contingent and depend on that condition he declare it his will in manner  follow I e imprimis in case c which connect the whole as I be of this opinion  none of the collateral proof as to his take notice of the will c can be take  into consideration unless some act be do by he to republish or to defeat the  condition that be annex to it before and it ought not to be support by parole  proof against the statute of fraud either in law or equity No occasion to  enter into the d question but will say something of it d question something  offer to rebut this by circumstance of settlement make of the wife estate on  the child so that the child be not disinherit entire and there her husband may  desire the will to remain but this can overturn the rule of law if it be one  as to alteration of circumstance revoke the will Jackson v hurlock Ambl but  this settlement be still in the mother power so out of the case now it be  plain this will be a total disposition and relate to the personal and real  estate as to the first lugg v lugg in salk and Lord Raymond which be a good  report ex relation sergeant Cheshire be a strong case ambler but it be say  that subsequent authority be otherwise but in my own experience I do not know  it I have hear it say by judge obiter but it be material to observe the word  of the statute of fraud car as to revocation which be No will of land or any  clause thereof shall be revocable otherwise than by some other will c at the  end of the Act there be a clause of revocation of will of personal estate  videlicet No will in write concern any good or personal estate shall be repeal  nor any clause or bequest alter by any word or will by word of mouth only  except the same he in the lifetime of the testator commit to write and read to  the testator and allow by he and prove to be so do by three witness now there  be a very great difference in the two clause saint No devise of land revocable  otherwise than by some other will c which exclude all other manner as to the  personal estate all other method of revoke be leave as at law except that of  alter by parole c therefore if these circumstance will by the civil law be a  revocation it remain as the law be then receive but as to land the word be  negative in my apprehension that exclude all other manner of revocation by  accident c but as to the revocation by feoff c those be not like the present  case because that depend on the force of the law which alter the case  therefore Lord Lincoln case el Eq can Abr show ambler er p p c be hold a  revocation though no marriage so feoff without livery or release without lease  sparrow v Hardcastle Ambl hick v mors Ambl but it be say there be a difference  whether a man be marry or not and this seem reasonable but it be not necessary  to give opinion on this but the principal reason why I mention this be that on  accident of have child after however the law may be yet under the circumstance  of the present case no court of equity will ambler give any latitude to  support such a will but will take hold of any word they can to make it  conditional and contingent as I have do in the present but I rest my opinion  on the difference in the statute of fraud as to revocation of real and  personal estate therefore the bill must be dismiss v Thompson and wife v  Sheppard that Dec t r in note v b in note from lib Reg marriage and have child  hold not to be a revocation of a will make by a widower who have child by his  former wife live at the time he make his will see spragg v stone Ambl cook v  Oakley p wms sheath v York v b