ambler case attorney general against Heartwell that July bequest of personalty  by will date prior to that g c to be lie out in land for a charity it be  afterward confirm d by a codicil date after the statute the codicil operate as  a new will and the devise be void see attorneygeneral v Andrews Ves Q Willett  v Sandford contra MT Eden mention that he have be unable to meet with any  entry of this case in either the Registrarsbook or in the minutebook S c Cox  ms king king hill ms Vol p Eden Richard Heartwell make his will in December  before the late statute of mortmain g c the time mention in the statute be  June and devise all the residue of his personal estate to be lie out in land  and settle to certain charitable use after the statute he make a codicil that  July and thereby after give a few legacy confirm his will he die on that  August information to have the residue of the personal apply accord to the  direction of the will Q whether the devise be void within the statute of  mortmain on open the cause by Mr Clayton who be the lead counsel for the  informant he treat the question as settle and determine and for that purpose  cite the case of Ashburnham v Bradshaw atk Willet v Sandford Ves but Lord  chancellor start a distinction between those case and this there the devise be  of real estate here of personal and a will speak at different time with  respect to the different estate this be a surprise upon the counsel on all  side who be not prepare to speak to this question however it be argue  instanter Lord chancellor Northington I shall always think myself happy when I  can by authority of law control foolish and superstitious act of person  dispose of their estate in mortmain ambler the distinction in Ashburnham v  Bradshaw be not now to be dispute it ambler er p be find upon the certificate  of eleven judge though I think a great deal may be say in that case against  the determination the true reason why a will of land take effect from the make  be because a man be not presume to give more than he have at the time it may  have be hold that a will of land be not complete till death and till then it  be ambulatory and that the devise in that case be within the statute however  the judge be of a different opinion that be the case of a real estate but as  to the personal estate it admit of a different consideration the statute make  a intestacy this statute differ from the statute against papist pound W c see  g c g c the devise be make absolute void on the other statute it be defeat by  incapacity in the person to take this distinction be take by Lord Hardwicke in  Mog v bath hospital Ves the line be to be draw at the death the thing do not  exist till then he may or may not have any personal estate at the time of the  will if it rest on this mere I think it will be within the statute but here  the codicil alter the residuum and quoad the personal make a new will it  confirm the will and consequent make a new publication of it Gibson v Roger  ante Jackson v hurlock post attorneygeneral v Downing post therefore declare  so much of the will as relate to the residue of the personal estate be void by  the statute of mortmain Willet v Sandford before Lord Hardwicke ambler  testator by will make before the statute of mortmain devise a real estate to  three trustee for charitable use and by a codicil make after the statute he  alter the disposition which he make by his will of part of his real estate by  neglect one of his nephew and his issue he then devise the estate which he  have give he by his will and devise it over again and also a piece of pasture  to the same trustee and to two other as additional trustee upon the same  charitable trust he have give it by his will Q whether the codicil revoke the  will and operate as a new devise if it do then the devise to the charity will  be void by the statute of mortmain Lord Hardwicke hold that as to the  additional land give by the codicil the devise be void by the statute of  mortmain it be devise only by the codicil which be subsequent to the statute  but as to the other land he hold that neither the beneficial nor trust estate  be revoke as well from the nature of the instrument as the word of it the  beneficial interest be the same in the will and in the codicil the codicil be  part of the will and not a revocation of the instrument itself but only a few  particular bequest in it this be the nature of a codicil accord to Swinb and  here the testator say the codicil be by he intend to confirm his will and be  therefore to be make part of it note that a codicil be to be consider as part  of the will see Crosbie v Macdougal Ves Meggison v more Ves jun hill v chapman  Ves Barton v Knowlton Ves Hulme v Heygate Meriv see bunter v cook salk master  v master p W attorneygeneral v vigour Ves   Litt b as to the difference in the  operation of a will affect land and of one relate to personalty it be say by  Lord Mansfield in the case of Hirwood v Goodright Cowp a devise of land in  England be consider in a different light from a Roman will for a will in the  civil law be a institution of the heir but a devise in England be a  appointment of particular land to a particular devisee and be consider in the  nature of a conveyance by way of appointment and upon that principle it be  that no man can devise land which he have not at the date of such conveyance  see Bl Com in wind v Jekyl p W Lord chancellor Parker be report to have say  that the reason of the difference be that with regard to the real estate buy  after the make the will suppose that not to pass still there be one in law  capable of take it videlicet the heir but as to the personal estate if the  executor though make before acquire thereof do not take it it be uncertain who  shall it be for this reason videlicit that a man can devise only such land as  he have at the time of make his will that every devise of land must of  necessity be specific how v earl of Dartmouth Ves mammock v Horton ib ante but  in equity where the testator have previous to the ambler er p date of his will  execute a agreement for the purchase of a estate as he have in equity the  estate it will pass by his will rise v Cunyngham Ves and the subsequent  conveyance of the legal estate will not revoke the will see ib parson v  freeman ante