but in a case where Edward earl of Lincoln have mortgage the manor of S to the  defendant Wynn and his heir for pound and afterward by his will in default of  issue male of his own body devise it to sir Fran Clinton who be to succeed he  in the honour for his life with remainder to his first and other son in tail  male with other remainder over and appoint that his householdgoods equity case  abridge er p at his chief house at S shall remain there asHeir loom to the  next heir male who shall be earl of Lincoln and make sir Francis Clinton  executor afterward the earl who be very whimsical take a fancy to one mrs  Calvert daughter to the Lord Baltimore and fancy he will marry her though it  be prove in the Cause there never be any intention of such marriage in her or  in any of her relation nor any treaty about it and in this fancy he make a  lease and release of those premise to the defendant davenport and townsend and  their heir in consideration of the say intend marriage as it be express to the  use of himself and heir till the say intend marriage take effect then as to  part in trust for mrs Calvert and her heir in lieu of her dower and as to the  rest in trust that the trustee shall sell it to disencumber that part limit to  mrs Calvert and the surplus of the money to his executor and administrator  there be no far progress towards the marriage and sometime after the earl die  without any alteration of his will and the honour descend to sir Francis  Clinton who have but a very small estate if any who die soon after and the  plaintiff his old son and heir a infant of about seven year old bring his bill  to have the redemption of the mortgage and a conveyance of the estate and the  defendant a b and c who be cousin and coheir of earl Edward bring a crossbill  that they may redeem and have the estate convey to they and the only question  be whether this lease and release be a revocation of the will it be say for  the plaintiff that the earl have but a equitable interest the whole estate be  before mortgage in fee and therefore it ought to be consider accord to equity  and that though such a lease and release will have be a revocation of a devise  of a legal estate yet it will not be so here for the reason the law go upon in  judge it a revocation be because the lease and release be a conveyance of the  estate and so ex necessitate rei a revocation of the devise and it be plain  the law go upon this and not upon any suppose alteration in the person be will  for if a man make a will and thereby devise land to I S and his heir and  afterward article to sell the land to I d and his heir and receive the  purchasemoney and die before any conveyance make these article will be no  revocation of his will and yet it be as plain his mind and intention as to  those land be alter as much as if he have actual make a conveyance to I d and  in case of a equitable interest the lease and release make no alteration of  the estate so as to induce a necessity of adjudge it a revocation as there be  in case of a legal estate it be plain as to his intention that he do not  intend any revocation or alteration of his will unless or until that marriage  shall take effect for by the release it be limit that till that marriage it  shall be to he and his heir which be just as it be before and that equity case  abridge marriage have never take effect the estate continue just as it be and  it can be pretend that this lease and release be any express revocation of his  will and the court of chancery be so far from follow the strict rule of legal  revocation that it often relieve against they and therefore if a man devise  Blackacre to I S and his heir and afterward mortgage to I d and his heir this  in law be a revocation of the devise and yet in equity it shall be none far  than to let in the mortgage and to this purpose be cite several case and  therefore since the court of equity must interpose for one side or other it be  conclude it ought to interpose for the present earl and that he ought to have  the redemption of the estate as devise by the will of earl Edward for the  defendant it be say that such a lease and release will have be a revocation of  a devise of a legal estate and that equitable estate be and there be no fraud  or circumvention nor other equitable circumstance to make the court vary from  that rule in this case and the will be in disinherison of the heir who be  always favour in all court and as to the case put where mortgage have be hold  to be no revocation in equity it be say the reason of that be because mortgage  be not consider as conveyance of the estate but only charge upon it and my  Lord keeper be of this opinion and decree the plaintiff bill to be dismiss and  the coheir to have the redemption of the mortgage Trin the earl of Lincoln and  bolls all show p c S c and the decree affirm in the house of lord Freem S c  resolve that it be a revocation and upon a appeal so hold in dom proc carry  only by two lord vide Disler v Disler lev show parliament Cas p wms Chan Rep  atk will Ambl atk Ambl will Ambl dougl equity case abridge er p