atkins case beard versus beard April Brownrigg v pike p d b by a will in give  all his estate real and personal to his brother and make he executor in by a  deed poll he grant to his wife all his substance which he now have or  hereafter may have the will be revoke as to all the personal estate by the  deed poll but as it can operate as a grant of it to the wife the personal  estate must be distribute the plaintiff husband a freeman of London be at  variance with his wife in January by his will execute at a tavern give all his  estate real and personal to his brother and make he his executor in November  by a deed poll he give and grant unto his wife all his substance which he now  have or may hereafter have the bill be bring by the wife who insist upon the  deed poll and that the will be revoke by this subsequent act of the husband in  his lifetime the counsel for the plaintiff cite Boughton versus Boughton the  that of December t atk and Harvey versus Harvey November the that vide I t atk  Lord chancellor a man here have do two very unreasonable act if it shall  happen one trip up the heel of the other it be a very fortunate thing to set  every thing right again a wife appear here to be unprovide for both before and  after marriage a will be make at a tavern probable in a passion for the  husband be part from his wife at that time by which he give his whole estate  to his brother afterward he be guilty of another unreasonable act a gift to  his wife by deed poll of all his substance the question be which be to take  effect the latter can take effect as a grant or deed of gift to the wife  because the law will not permit a man to make a grant or conveyance to the  wife in his lifetime neither will this court suffer the wife to have the whole  of the husband estate while he be live for it be not in the nature of a  provision which be all the wife be entitle to vide Lucas v Lucas atk watkyns v  watkyns atk stoit v Ayloff Charles Rep but then another consideration remain  that though it can take effect as a grant to the wife yet whether this be not  a act so inconsistent and repugnant to the will that it may amount to a  revocation though a act not strict legal atkins there be several instance in  this court where a incomplete act and void at law have be hold here to be a  revocation of a will notwithstanding as a feoff without livery c vide parson v  freeman atk sparrow v Hardcastle atk it have be say this will be prove and  establish in the ecclesiastical court and therefore must be consider as a will  to be sure the ecclesiastical court can not do otherwise for though this deed  be a revocation of the legacy under the will yet the executor continue it must  be prove in the commons but by this alteration in the disposition of the  personal estate the executor become a trustee for the next of kin the next  question be upon the construction of the Geo sec in respect to the custom of  London if this be a intestacy it be admit by the defendant counsel it must be  distribute atkins er p but they have insist here be a will which as it be  prove must stand and therefore there be no intestacy at least of the personal  estate but if there be a intestacy at all there be no difference in point of  law between a absolute and a qualify intestacy this be the rule the executor  who from this qualify intestacy be now become a trustee must distribute in  this case accord to the custom of the city of London and his lordship decree  accord he declare likewise that the will be revoke as to all the personal  estate by the deed poll and yet it can take effect as a gift or grant of such  personal estate to the plaintiff but the say personal estate must be  distribute