case Elizabeth Jackson and letitia Sutton devisees and executrixs of dame  sarah Harper plaintiff against joseph hurlock and his wife timothy DALLOW and  his wife and other defendant in chancery July that that and that November  follow Harvey v Lloyd l I Ch one by will devise real estate to certain use  afterward by deed he convey it to the same use until he marry and then to new  use after the deed and before marriage he by codicil attest by three witness  and direct to be annex to his will impose a forfeiture upon person disturb his  wife and after the codicil marry the settlement revoke the will but the  codicil set it up again and the new use spring on the marriage do not revoke  the codicil the subsequent marriage be no revocation of the will upon the  subject of marriage operate as a revocation see in spring v stone post and  note there devise of land subject to and charge with legacy in mortmain the  legacy sink for benefit of devisee see post Grosvenor v Hallam and note there  see baker v hall Ves lib Reg a foe S c Eden sir John Hartopp have two daughter  the defendant Sarah hurlock and Elizabeth Dallow by will of that July give his  manor and estate of Barton Lazors in the county of Leicester to John spranger  and his heir in trust for Sarah marsh who be his housekeeper for life with  remainder to the defendant Sarah hurlock for life for her separate use with  remainder to her first and other daughter in tail with remainder to her first  and other son in tail with remainder to his other daughter Dallow and her  child in like manner with remainder to his own right heir Ho also devise his  manor of Brettinby and Wyverly and his estate in Trethby subject to a annuity  to his say daughter and their child in the same manner with remainder to his  own right heir he also devise to Sarah marsh and her heir for ever all his  manor of Buckminster and Sewster subject to and charge with payment of any sum  not exceed pound to such person and at such time and in such proportion as he  by a letter or other note memorandum or write under his hand to be deliver to  or leave with her shall appoint not doubt or distrust her honour or integrity  in the performance of his ambler will and intention therein and he direct that  all such money as shall be owe by he or her or any other at his death and also  his legacy therein bequeathe and writ with his own hand to the amount of about  pound shall be charge on the say premise the inheritance whereof be devise to  the say Sarah marsh and make the say Sarah marsh residuary legatee and sole  executrix he afterward have a intention of marry Sarah marsh make a settlement  ambler er p of that October and convey the above estate until the marriage to  such use as the same be before settle and convey and afterward to the use of  himself and wife and issue of the marriage with remainder to such use as he  shall by deed or will appoint remainder to his own right heir on the that  October he make a codicil to his will attest by three witness and which be  entitle a codicil which I direct and desire to be annex and take and consider  as part of my last will and then dispose of certain money in the public fund  which he recite to have discover since the make his will and then direct that  if either of his daughter or their husband or any other to who any devise or  legacy by his will shall come shall disturb or attempt to disturb his wife  they shall forfeit their interest under the will and the same shall go to  Sarah hurlock upon the saint November he write a letter or memorandum direct  to Sarah marsh whereby after recite the devise to her of the manor of  Buckminster and Sewster in the word of the will in pursuance of his say power  and in confidence of the trust he repose in her by his say will he declare it  his will and mind and desire her either by sale or mortgage or otherwise as to  her shall seem meet and convenient to raise so much money as will be  sufficient to discharge not only his just debt and legacy bequeathe in his  will and charge upon his say estate but also the several sum follow to the  several person and ambler for the several use in the manner therein after  mention then he give several sum to charitable and superstitious use to the  amount of about pound upon the saint November he marry Sarah marsh and on the  that January die leave Sarah his widow and Sarah hurlock and Elizabeth Dallow  his only child and heir at law upon the that April dame Sarah make her will  and recite that she have contract with Lord William manner for the sale of  Buckminster and Sewster devise those estate to the plaintiff her sisters in  trust to complete the say contract or to sell the premise to some other person  and direct that the purchase money shall be first apply in discharge of the  money to which the premise be subject by sir John will and that the residue  shall be consider as part of her personal estate and make the plaintiff  residuary legatee and executrixs bill by plaintiff to have sir John Hartopps  will and codicil and the will of dame Sarah establish and direction for carry  the trust into execution that the estate of Buckminster and Sewster may be  sell for payment of sir John debt and such of the legacy as be not void and to  have the residue of the purchase money discharge from the charity and  superstitious legacy four question be make saint whether sir John will which  be revoke by the settlement be set up again by the codicil d whether the  settlement by the introduction of a new estate revoke the will again d whether  the marriage be a revocation of the will and codicil that whether the charity  and superstitious legacy be void they shall go to the heir at law as a result  trust or sink into the estate for the benefit of the devisee ambler for  the plaintiffs it be argue by Mr York and Mr Hoskins saint that the codicil be  a republication it be express direct to be take as part of and annex to his  will and relate to his real estate by prohibit the daughter to defeat any of  the devise in his will to Sarah marsh and his heir and it be attest by three  witness and give force to the will so as to pass all the interest in his  estate ndly that the settlement take effect and operation from the execution  of it and not from the time the new use be introduce dly that marriage alone  be not a revocation of a will of personal that marriage and a child bear be  not so of real vide Thomson and wife v Sheppard that December v b note a from  lib Reg post marriage and have child hold not a revocation of a will make by a  widower who have child by a former wife live at the time he make his will just  Inst title roof b S barrow v Barker in the prerogative court in Meredith v  Jenkins in ditto Outram v Outram in ditto ambler er p Barker v Pusey may in  prerogative court Jekyl v bradyl before sir George lee in ditto note in all  these case there be a child Getson v well at the cook pit November in which  last case dr hay cite all the former as authority and which be not deny that  the birth of a child either in the lifetime or posthumous be necessary to make  a marriage a revocation of a will of personalty Ora v Altham at the cockpit d  June the testator make a provision for child by settlement the lord hold that  the will be not revoke by marriage and have child but that the presumption of  revocation be repel by the provision show Overberys case there cite ambler  that as to real estate there be no case where marriage and have a child have  be hold a revocation of a will of land since the statute of fraud in brown v  Thompson I Eq can Abr Lord keeper hold it no revocation upon consideration of  the circumstance of the case thly the estate be devise to Sarah marsh charge  with payment of the legacy and as they can take place she be entitle to the  estate discharge from they this differ from the case of a devise in trust on  the other side it be argue saint that sir John have acquire only a  determinable fee the codicil mean only to set up the will quoad that interest  that the continent fee to take place after the marriage and the limitation  spend be not intend nor can pass by it dly Tat the settlement take effect upon  the introduction of the new use which be not till the marriage and this be  after the codicil operate as a revocation of it dly that it seem by the book  to be take for grant that before the statute marriage be revocation of real as  well as personal estate that the passage cite out of Justinian do not apply  but fall under a different consideration that be the power of a father to  disinherit his son without a reason which the Roman law do not permit and  therefore be not authority that the birth of a child be necessary to make  marriage a revocation of a will that there be no determination with respect to  real estate to be find in the book previous to the statute and very few since  that a will may be revoke by implication be out of doubt the question upon  this head have be whether particular act be a total or partial revocation c  blow hale v Dunot vern cro jack ambler suppose one charge his estate with debt  and portion and afterward pay they without take a release it be a revocation  of the devise in lug v lug in salk and I Lord Raymond Lord chief justice Treby  say there be such a alteration of his estate and circumstance here be room and  presumptive evidence to believe a revocation and that the testator continue  not of the same mind there be child in that case and therefore it be not a  authority in point to the present but it show that a will of land may be  revoke by implication arise from marriage and have child brown v Thompson Eq  can Abr seem to be a authority in point that marriage alone be a revocation of  a will of land it be decree a revocation at the bolls and though Lord keeper  reverse the decree he admit the principle but vary the decree upon the  particular circumstance of the case the wife be with child be not take into  consideration it can not for she be privement ensient and therefore can not  induce a presumption that the testator do not from that circumstance continue  in the same mind but Lord keeper give his reason see whether they will hold it  be for the sake of the wife as well as the child that the rule must prevail a  wife be entitle to a provision as well as child neither have any thing secure  in the personal and though the wife be entitle to dower in the real yet if it  be trust estate she will be defeat and most of the great estate be in trust  the act of marriage annul the will he have a wife and may have child the  reason of my Lord keeper be inconclusive for the wife may marry again and  either give the estate to her second husband or to her child by he or which be  very natural divide it between the two set of child ambler er p ambler in  brown v Thompson it do not appear the wife be otherwise provide for here she  be jointure another circumstance in favour of a revocation the child will take  in the other way stranger take thly the right of the heir be clear if devisee  be not entitle the legacy will be consider as so much of the estate not  dispose of Q whether dispose of or not in the event that depend upon the  construction of the will and letter nothing be intend to be give to the  devisee but the residue after debt and legacy take out the mode of expression  be immaterial that be substantial his intention suppose so much as will pay  debt and legacy have be direct to be sell and the residue of the estate to go  to the devisee there can be no doubt the will be tantamount the letter be  express so the will devise the estate subject and Chargeable not doubt c the  latter word amount to a trust the letter call it a trust and direct a sale or  mortgage argue that the estate be give charge and therefore whatever way  discharge the devisee be entitle to the benefit of it but the true answer be  that the devisee be to have only the residue this be not like the case of  portion under a settlement there the estate be intend to be settle subject to  a contingent right to portion the issue be purchaser of the estate by the  stipulation of the party here be a absolute devise to charity the charge do  not depend upon the devise of the estate as she be not entitle under the  particular devise so she be not as residuary devisee she be so only of part of  the testator estate but if she be of the whole she can not take distinction  between a lapse devise of real and personal estate the residuary legatee take  the latter but not the former Lord Northington chancellor on the that November  declare himself very clear of opinion with the plaintiff upon the saint d and  that question but think the d require consideration ambler as to the saint the  codicil be declare to be part of the will and direct to be annex to it make it  very clear as to the d there be no time when sir John be not seize of a  contingent fee and all the right which he have pass by his will the that  question be argue by counsel on a mistake as if he intend at all event to take  pound out of the estate whereas he mean the reverse a sum not exceed pound  have put a charge upon the estate which can take place the d question be new  and shall consider of it I mean to give no opinion now but I always understand  that marriage and the birth of a child will revoke a will of personal estate  there be no determination that marriage simple will revoke a will of  personalty this be the case of land the case cite do not prove that marriage  and the birth of a child will revoke a will of realty in all law a will may be  revoke by circumstance captivity do by the Roman law the law postliminium  restore it or rather make it consider as if the testator have not be in  captivity different circumstance prevail in different country the law here  overrides the will by give dower to the wife order to stand over that November  Lord chancellor give his opinion it be obvious that the will be revoke by the  settlement that it have for several year be fix at law and in Lord Lincoln  case be consider so Q whether it be revive by the codicil before the statute a  declaration will revive a will revoke upon the reason if the will contain all  his estate there be no need to revive it again but a declaration will be  sufficient the statute of fraud require particular solemnities here they be  comply with and the codicil be declare to be a part of the will a distinction  be attempt that the will passes one estate and the codicil another that be a  distinction without a difference ambler the next question be whether the  marriage revoke the will and codicil it will be dangerous to insist that the  marriage simple revoke a will V Amb parson v Lanoe upon the other hand it will  be as dangerous to say that no alteration of circumstance shall operate as a  indication of intention to revoke if such a case be to come before I upon a  legal interest I shall put it into a proper way to be determine there seem  little reason to presume such intention from the simple act of marriage for  the law have provide for the wife there be no determination that marriage  simple be a revocation of a will of land but in opinion be find on the  circumstance of the case sir John Hartopp have make a settlement on his ambler  er p wife and the child of the marriage and he only dispose of the reversion  subject to that provision this be nothing inconsistent with the disposition he  have make as to the last question I be very clear that the void legacy sink  into the estate for the benefit of the devisee V Gravener v hallum Amb note  his lordship have forget the last question and upon be put in mind of it by Mr  York say as above Mr York and Mr Hoskins be for the plaintiff Mr  solicitorgeneral and myself be for the defendant as to the effect of a codicil  upon a will previous revoke see Gibson v Roger ante see Crosby v Macdougal Ves  attorneygeneral v Heartwell ante attorneygeneral v Downing post cart v cart  ante see in Powel v Claver bro