case hick against mors saint march a covenant to levy a fine to h for year by  way of mortgage remainder as a shall appoint fine levy a devise to h afterward  for S covenant that the fine shall enure to h in fee hold a revocation of the  will the fact of this case and the judgement be give very full in Lord Kenyons  report Vol see Bennet v vade atk S c ken lib Reg a foe Thomas Baldwin who be a  sailor be seize in fee by indenture that January in consideration of pound  covenant to levy a fine to the use of hick who be a attorney at law for year  by way of mortgage to secure a sum of money with remainder to such use as  Baldwin shall appoint upon the that of may Thomas Baldwin make his will and  devise to hick in fee afterward Baldwin be prevail upon by hick to execute a  indenture of that may of three part between Thomas Baldwin of first part  Denton of second and hick of three part whereby after recite the deed of that  January and that the fine have be levy Thomas Baldwin ambler in consideration  of S covenant that the fine shall enure to Denton in trust for hick in fee  Lord Hardwicke chancellor in give his opinion what effect the conveyance of  that may will have upon the will declare there be no doubt at law but that it  be a revocation which depend upon intention therefore a imperfect conveyance  be a revocation intent do not mean intent to revoke but to make a different  disposition sparrow v Hardcastle post ex part Ilchester Ves so a conveyance  intend to strengthen a will operate as a revocation Lord Lincoln case cite  post more Ro Abr Mod Thomas Baldwin mean to make a conveyance this be not like  the case of a conveyance by covin which will make it not his deed at law that  will be a nullity but here the whole pass and can nor be reinvest without a  reconveyance so a bargain and sale without enrolment post so a feoff without  livery and release without lease post the present case be at variance with the  decision of Lord Thurlow in the case of haw v Wyatt bro c c in which case his  lordship overrule a judgement of the master of the bolls it appear however  that the present case be not refer to in haw v Wyatt see Ves bro note by Mr  belt and Lord Eldon appear to prefer the decision in the present case to that  of Lord Thurlow in haw v Wyatt see Ves Ves and see per sir W grant Ves in  Harmood v Oglander see haw v Wyatt on the original hear at the roll Cox see  Eilbeck v wood Russ