case sparrow against Hardcastle one devise all his manor c afterward he convey  a advowson to trustee in trust to present f I when vacant and then in trust  for himself and his heir hold a revocation of the devise of the advowson in  chancery d and that may No entry in l r S c t r ken dick atk hill ms p Cyril  arthington by will that July devise all his manor message tithe tenement and  hereditament whatsoever in trust for his nephew Cyril arthington and his issue  in strict settlement with remainder over afterward on that November he convey  the advowson of Addle to the use of trustee and their heir and by another deed  of saint November he declare the ambler trust to be that the trustee and the  survivor of they and his heir shall present to the church when void such son  of Robert Jackson as shall after a vacancy and within five month be qualify  and if such son shall be incapable then to present such clerk as Cyril  arthington or his heir shall nominate and in default of such nomination as  they the say trustee shall think meet by give security to resign c with a  proviso that in case of a first or other vacancy there shall be no son of  Robert Jackson live or such son be qualify shall neglect or refuse to accept  of a presentation thereto then in either of those case the trustee shall stand  seize in trust for the testator and his heir and on request shall convey the  same to his and their use and in the same case shall present such clerk as  Cyril arthington or his heir shall in write nominate and in default of such  nomination then such clerk shall be present as the say trustee shall think  meet he also make a codicil date saint November but which be prove to have be  execute on the that and before the deed be by which after take notice he have  be offend with his nephew and have by a codicil disinherit he but be now  reconcile he restore he to every thing he have give he in his will since the  death of the testator one of jackson son have be present to and be in  possession of the live bill by heir at law of the testator to have legal  conveyance of the residue of the advowson Lord Hardwicke chancellor Q whether  the grant be a complete revocation of the devise of the advowson or not see  the observation on this judgement by chief justice Eyre Ves the general  principle by which case of this kind be govern be that at the time of the  devise the devisor must have a dispose capacity and a estate in the land  devise and that the estate must remain in the same plight and condition to the  time of his death even the least alteration of this interest by any act of his  make it a ambler er p different estate ambler show a different intention hick  v mors ante and be therefore a actual revocation of such will unless in some  special case and this be lie down by Lord Trevor in his argument in the case  of Arthur v bokenham Fitzherbert a will be only the signification of a man  purpose how his estate shall go after his death and if he do any intermediate  act whence it must necessary be infer such intention do not continue it be a  revocation though the owner shall be in of his old use as if one seize in fee  devise and then feoff another to the use of himself in fee though it be the  old use that remain yet it be a revocation even though no livery be make on  the feoff so bargain and sale without enrolment Ves in Vawser v Jeffere Swanst  so in Lord Lincoln case Eq can Abr where he devise to his heir male and then  intend to marry he settle the estate on himself he die unmarried and the house  of lord hold the settlement to be a revocation so if a man suppose himself to  be seize in fee devise his estate and afterward suspect he be only tenant in  tail suffer a common recovery sole with intent to confirm his will it be such  a alteration of his estate as amount to a revocation the law be thus settle  and it must not now be contradict Marwood v turner wms distinction take in  this case be that the grantor dispose of part of the trust on the remainder be  a result trust and so passes by the devise but I know of no authority to  support this and be myself of a different opinion for if he part with the  entire legal state the part that result be a new estate and will not pass by  the devise a opinion of I in parson v freeman ante be cite against I videlicet  that if beneficiary and use in a feoff devise a subsequent conveyance from the  feoff to he of the legal estate will be no revocation as that be not the point  in judgement I do not think myself conclude by it but I be warrant to continue  in that opinion by a case in Ro Abr thus the law consider two interest in the  land the legal estate and the use now the use remain the same at the make the  devise and at the death of the devisor and therefore accept the grant of the  feoff make no alteration in it see Mr Sugdens observation upon this passage in  his treatise on vendor and purchaser page n another distinction this be a  conveyance for a particular ambler purpose and when that be serve the deed  ought to affect the estate no further and it be compare to the case of  mortgage and security for money mortgage and security be the only exception at  law mortgage for year and in equity mortgage in fee be revocation pro tanto  only but I know of no ground for suppose that to be the principle on which  they be find there be no case which have the word for a particular purpose as  the reason for the determination unless it be Vernon v Jones pre in Ch which  be a provision for a wife and child may be construe large and vern in his  report of it put a question at the end as if he doubt on what point it be  determine it be doubtful too whether the case of hall v Dunch vern be  determine on the point of its be a mortgage in fee or of a republication but  the true ground of those exception be because a mortgage be mere a security  and though the conveyance be of a real estate yet in the consideration of this  court it be a chattel interest only the creditor gain nothing real it afford  no dower and go to executor it be therefore consistent to say it be no  revocation of the devise of the real estate but in the present case the grant  convey the legal interest and the trust be real in one event in order to  prevent a lapse for by the provision they in default of nomination c by Cyril  arthington or his heir may present so that the beneficial interest be give to  the trustee not that the case want the assistance of this circumstance this be  a clear legal revocation and then something very strong must be set up to  disinherit the heir at law No case can be for a more special purpose than Lord  Lincoln Eq can Abr that be say to be a harsh case and that the favour which  the law show to heir have be carry too far but Lord Trevor give a answer to  this objection he say that a law be make long ago and have receive many  uniform determination after long debate and acquiescence under they and when  accept ambler and receive as a general rule of property though some shall not  be satisfy in their private judgement yet it be reasonable to determine the  same way to prevent the mischief that may arise from the uncertainty of the  law I mention this answer of Lord trevor more particular because he have a  more liberal way of think than most ambler er p of the judge of the law the  plaintiff be therefore entitle to the conveyance unless the defendant choose  to try the fact of the execution of the last codicil which be year ago and  depend on the memory of one witness only but the defendant be decline to try  the fact decree accord roll Abr Darley v Darley will in bridge v duke of  chandos Ves jun parson v freeman ante cave v Holford Ves Vawser v Jeffere  Swanst cart v cart ante see hick v mors ante so where the tenant in a common  recovery have not plead nontenure he gain a new estate though the limitation  be to the old use and the will be revoke by it Bennet v vade atk Fricker v  Thurston Ves Harmood v Oglander Ves see cart v cart ante Parker v Jackson post  Vawser v Jeffere Swanst rider v wager p wms cholmondeley v Clinton I W it be  former he as mention in the margin that a mortgage to the devisee operate a  revocation bring Ch cook v bullock cro James but this have be overrule see  peach v Phillips dick Baxter v dyer Ves