case stead against berier a have a son and a grandson both of the name of  Robert devise land to his son Robert and his heir Robert the son die in the  lifetime of the testator the testator afterward republish his will and mind to  cause to testify declare that Robert his grandson shall have the land which be  give to Robert his son the grandson can take the land thus devise for by the  death of the son the devise to he be void and therefore can not be revive to  the grandson by the parole declaration SC Freem SC Eq Abr SC lev SC Pollexf SC  ray SC vent SC Mod SC Jones SC Mod SC keb Writ of error to reverse a judgement  in ejectment in the common plea when Scroggs be puisne judge there and against  his then opinion a it appear raym that in easter term car it be move again and  the judgement affirm shower KB er p the case be this a grandfather have a son  call Robert who have a son call Robert the grandfather make a will and give  his estate to his son Robert who die in his lifetime he then make a codicil  and thereby give two close to his cousin Judith and the same day he republish  his will and mind to cause to testify declare that Robert the grandson shall  have the land which he have give to his son Robert the question be whether the  grandson shall take by this devise Baldwin sergeant for the plaintiff in the  writ of error it be against the express word of the statute of Henry c that  land shall pass by devise without will in write a parole declaration may  destroy or make void a will but can never support or set up a will if it be  good it must work a great deal of violence first it must amount to a new will  in write and second it must take away the effect of the codicil shower KB  which be make the same day he cite the case of Brett v Ridgden a where it be  adjudge that the devisee die in the life of the testator the testator say that  the devisees son shall have the land will not pass to he the same unless  reduce into write and as for the case of full v full b where the case be a  devise his land to his son Richard in tail remainder to Edward and Richard die  in the lifetime of a a say I will that my will stand good to the child of  Richard as if he have overlived I wherefore he say there be a remainder over  it be not the testator intention he shall take till the estatetail spend but  in the case in question it be a fee and the will be become void and can be set  up by a new declaration and as for the case of Beckford v Pancourt e there the  word of the will pass all the land he have in d and the land new purchase be  in d also and so the new publication be sufficient but here it be not so here  must be a new estate to the grandson new create Mr solicitor general the sole  question be if this be a good republication but if there be sufficient  operative word in a man will write the land shall pass a averment that will  stand with the will shall be receive and so be Cheyneys case d now to  republish be all one with a original devise and the same thing as if it have  be writ over again and here be no other person of this denomination but the  grandson have no son Robert be alive at the make of the will then Robert the  plaintiff shall have take as son as repute so and by that name Scroggs chief  justice continue in the same opinion as when in the common plea say that the  strength of the objection lie in the likeness of the name whereas have the  grandson be name Thomas he can never have take and can any one make two  distinct person to be but one the very parole declaration make they two as  real they be it be apparent that the son intend in the will be one and the  person name in the declaration shower KB be another I will allow such a  republication good in the case where a man give all his land to I S and then  purchase other land and then republish his will e because there if he shall  write it over again he will use the same word but here he will have express it  otherwise if he have write it anew he will never have say these word I give to  my grandson what his father shall have have Jones justice agree with the chief  justice dolben justice disarm and conceive it of as much force as a original  devise and compare it to the case where a man devise to his son John and he  die and then he have another soil Christian by the name of John and republish  his will and mind to cause to testify declare that his young son John shall  take Pemberton justice agree with the other two justice that it can never go  to the grandson when we say general son we do not mean grandson though it be  improper sometime so call a soninlaw be call son but suppose a man have a a  Plowd the second resolution of the court SC Eq Abr b more foe SC cro Elizabeth  SC Godolp SC Eq Abr see Hodgson v Ambrose dougl Warner v white Doug notorious  facts and browns Chan case notorious facts c more foe SC cro Elizabeth SC  Gouldsb SC Godolph d   SC more see term Rep e Beckford v Parnecott cro  Elizabeth see also term Rep shower KB er p son call Robert and devise land to  his son Robert and then marry another wife who have a son call Robert which be  also common call son to the second husband and his own son Robert die now will  any man imagine that the republication of this shall pass any thing to the  soninlaw suppose the son have be alive will those word have pass to the  grandson and who can tell I any reason why the grandson shall have it the soon  because the father be dead rather than when he be alive since a revocation be  more easy than a transfer at this rate of construction I may write a man in my  will forty year before he be bear and I take a great diversity between  averment and parole declaration to explain the original will Mr sander in  Hilary term follow argue it again that although the grandson may in some sense  be call son yet he be not so in the testator sense in this will for there he  give his land to his son Robert and to his grandson Robert a personal legacy  shower KB Mr holt e contra argue that a bare republication of his will after  the death of his son will have do it and admit that will not yet a  republication she intention will have do it as here it be if this be a  original devise this person may now take by this description as a son though  in truth he be a grandson now a republication have the same effect and  operation as the make of a new will not from the first time but from the  republication and it shall have and bear the sense it be capable of at the  time of be republish he quote roll Abr pl but that which he most rely on be  dyer b Trevilians case then he argue that this be she intention to that very  purpose that Robert the grandson may take though a averment can be out of a  will yet the exposition of a dubious sentence may be from some matter  collateral Scroggs chief justice say I be not a whit stir by what have be  offer and the next term the opinion of the court be deliver that the grandson  can not take by that devise f and the judgement be reverse by all the court  except dolben justice