ambler case cart against cart march beneficiary and trust of a lease by will  direct that his old son shall have the disposal of it he afterward renew the  lease in trustee name the renew lease passes by the devise lib Reg a foe S c  hill ms and in Mr round ms tot verb S c atk ridgw at Lincoln inn hall Samuel  cart prebend of Tashbrooke in grant a lease of his prebendal land to one of  his child for year who declare the trust to be for Samuel cart for life and  then for such purpose as Samuel cart by deed or will shall appoint this lease  be renew annual and on every renewal there be a new declaration of trust  execute the latter renewal and declaration appear to have be all make to and  by his daughter Sarah in he make his will and direct his old son Thomas shall  have the sole disposal and benefit of this lease and make he executor and  residuary legatee by a subsequent clause which be insert in a void between the  dose of the will and the sign and which be contend by plaintiff to have be do  on that September and to amount to a republication he take notice he have make  his son Thomas executor and residuary legatee and declare that if his son  shall be molest or disturb by any prosecution of the government by which he  will incur a forfeiture of his interest and can not be his executor he make  his son Samuel ambler er p and daughter Sarah executor and give they what he  have give his son Thomas see ware v ware post in that of September a new lease  be grant to Sarah and a declaration of trust be execute by her in the same  word as the former have be and which be now subsist the will and clause be  prove as one will in the spiritual court without any notice be take that the  clause be insert after make the will Lord Hardwicke c the general question be  whether the renew lease in pass by the will in ambler there be three matter  for consideration saint whether the will make on the that January be  sufficient to pass not only the trust then in be but also all subsequent  benefit in case there shall be no new declaration of trust and this will  depend upon the new lease be consider a revocation of the will d whether the  new declaration on the subsequent lease will make any alteration and that  depend on the particular pen of the new declaration of trust d suppose the  will in to be revoke either by the determination of the lease or the new  declaration of trust on the new lease whether here be sufficient evidence of a  republication of that will as to saint question I be clear it be sufficient to  pass a subsequent benefit all the case cite of revocation of will by surrender  of lease have be of legal estate of term of year and no one have be determine  on the devise of a trust of a term Marwood vTurner wms the case in Goldsb and  Abney v miller atk that June be so and the latter be particular pen to confine  the interest of the devisee to the term then subsist if it stand on the intent  of the testator it can not be understand but that when he give a college lease  he mean all renew lease but the intention must stand with the rule of law and  whether it do depend on the pen of the will the case of term for year differ  great from a devise of the freehold and therefore this case be not like that  of bunter v cook salk which depend on the word of the statute of will which  say any person have a estate may devise the devise of the contingency of a  freehold be out of the statute as have be proper determine in the house of  lord butthat be not the case of a lease which may be devise though not in  possession so that here be no question as to the ability of the testator to  give such future interest not can there be any for all the case of revocation  of legacy of term for year depend on the short pen of the will as therefore  the testator may have use word that will have pass such a interest the  question be whether the word of this will be not sufficient with the intention  ambler the testator have only the trust estate he give by his will the  disposal of the lease to his son which lease be in his daughter name by which  he must mean to give the trust to his son and all the profit arise from it and  it be right observe at the bar that the word be to be take in as large sense  as if the lease mind declaration of trust be recite that he be to take the  whole trust and not the trust only of the then exist lease but of any renew  lease the declaration of trust give he power to surrender the lease c what can  he surrender for not to part with the beneficial interest but to take a new  lease if the lease and declaration of trust have be recite there can not have  be any doubt and therefore it must be consider as a devise of the lease and  all subsequent interest this construction be consistent with the intention of  the testator and all the rule of this court suppose the declaration have be  for a particular purpose and then that general clause there will have be no  doubt in the case and the name the person to take the benefit in another  instrument make no difference so it will be if it have be declare to be for  the benefit of those he have by any deed appoint if the case rest here I shall  think clear that nothing have be do to defeat the intention of the testator in  the will of but the subsequent act which appear to have be do ex abundant  caution make the great difficulty the question therefore be whether these new  declaration by reason of their particular pen amount to a revocation it will  be hard with respect to the intention of the testator if what he do with a  view to carry on the same intention and to preserve the estate in the same  manner he have settle it by his will shall work a alteration of it but if the  rule of his have such a effect upon it this court can help it the testator may  have make a write of disposal which will have be irrevocable and then it have  be out of ambler er p his power to defeat it he have not do so but make the  disposition by will which in its nature be a revocable act the question then  be whether the word ambler in the declaration of trust after the death of  Samuel cart then to such use c as the say Samuel cart shall by will appoint  shall be refer to the operation of the will make antecedent to it or to a will  to be make subsequent ware v ware Feb post if they shall refer to the former  that be to the operation of the will as it can take effect till the death of  the testator the declaration be well refer but there be no case to warrant  that construction how reasonable soever it may be and I be very unwilling to  determine against it for it may affect copyhold estate surrender to the use of  a will I have more doubt on this question than on the other but be not under  any necessity to determine it for whether they have reference to the operation  of the antecedent will or to a will to be make subsequent if there be a  sufficient republication of the will since the time of renew the lease and the  declaration of trust make thereof it will discharge I from give any opinion on  that question it have be say this court will follow the rule of law as to  revocation of will by act contrary to the intention of the testator the point  on which it be put be that a court of equity will follow the rule of property  at commonlaw and determine on the equitable interest on the same rule as court  of law do as to the legal estate but that rule be misapply as to the manner of  conveyance many act will pass a trust estate that will not pass a legal such  as a declaration c suppose a devise his real estate a feoff in fee to the use  of himself subsequent to the will be a revocation of it see in parson v  freeman post and sparrow v Hardcastle post and note but a subsequent mortgage  will not be a revocation in this court because it be only a security for a  debt and the devisee will take the legal estate subject to that charge sparrow  v Hardcastle post as to d questionI be of opinion here be sufficient evidence  of a republication the clause insert appear to have be so do subsequent to the  renewal of the lease and have be prove in doctor Commons as part of the will  and though there be instance of will be send to doctor Commons to be return  with a more particular probate yet as this clause or codicil for so it have be  call have no date to it it will be prove without a date ambler and then the  same question will remain to be determine in this court videlicet when it be  make every codicil set up what it do not alter in a will see attorneygeneral v  Downing post Jackson v Thurlock post Gibson v Roger post and note there as to  that part of it where he make his son h and daughter S executor on a  contingency it will in such case be void for if a man give a estate to a and  his heir and in case he commit high treason he give to another that be a void  condition because it will be defeat the effect of the law relate to forfeiture  for high treason and so it be in case of a estate tail but where a legatee die  in the lifetime of the testator he may substitute another in his stead and it  be on this reason because no interest have ever vest in the legatee if a  testator simple bequeathe a lease of which he be possess at the time of make  his will and afterward renew that lease the legatee be not entitle to the  benefit of the new lease Marwood v turner p W Abney v miller atk rudstone v  Anderson Ves attorneygeneral v Downing post hone v Medcroft bro c c cappin v  Fernyhough bro c c James v dean Ves but as in case of a chattel lease the  testator may if he please give not only the lease exist at the make of his  will but also any renew lease he may have at his death the true question in  all such case be whether it appear on the will to have be the testator  intention that the legatee shall take not only the actual lease if subsist at  his death but also any renew lease which he may then be possess of see per sir  I leech v c in Colegrave v Manby mad James v dean Ves see Mr sander note to  cart v cart atk the bill be file by the old son Thomas claim the whole benefit  of the lease in and pray that Sarah may assign to he Samuel and Sarah contend  that Thomas be only entitle to onethird for that the lease in be a revocation  of the will and do not pass by it it be refer to the master to take a account  of the rend receive by Samuel and Sarah cart since the death of the testator  and the balance be to be pay to the ambler er p plaintiff and Samuel and Sarah  cart be direct at the expense of the plaintiff to assign the lease to he and  deliver possession No cost be give on either side l r