case lord lansdown case a codicil duly execute with a design to the  republication of a will be a republication of the will although the will be  not reexecuted pursuant to car c S c Eq Rep S c cite comy Rep this be a e  ejectment bring by three coheir against Lord Lansdown upon a trial at bar two  point arise which at length come to be find special as appear from the follow  note of what pass at the trial at bar the earl of bath the common ancestor  make his will date the twentyfourth of October under which will Lord Lansdown  claim this will be afterward in the year revoke by act in law as to all the  real estate devise by it but not as to the personal modern report some year  afterward the testator tell Mr Nicholls who be then in the same coach with he  that be design to republish his will modern report er p and the day afterward  in the presence of several people he bring with he his will in one hand and  two codicil of the same import in the other and say this be my will by which I  have settle my estate and this I design as a codicil to my will to be take as  part and parcel thereof then the codicil be duly execute accord to the statute  car c of fraud and perjury and the will and one codicil be seal up in one  paper with the earl of bath seal and the other codicil in another paper with  the same seal and these paper be after his death produce by those with who  they be deposit neither the will nor the codicil be read at the time of  republication but in the codicil be take notice of his will in the follow  manner whereas I make my will in which I do not intend whole to revoke but in  respect of many alteration since happen c the question be whether this amount  to a republication of his will the will not be seal and subscribe as the  statute car c require the counsel for the plaintiff before it be find special  speak to this point to this purpose when the will be revoke it become a mere  scroll a paper indeed in which there be write but of no force and no more  capable of become a will than any other paper whatever it be hold a roll Abr a  even before the statute of fraud and perjury that the insert of a new legacy  or the make another executor do not amount to a new publication modern report  it appear from the case of sir Litton stride v lady Falkland b vern Chan Rep  Powel on devise b that the make a codicil quatenus a codicil be no new  publication for in that case a man by his will devise all his land afterward  be purchase other land and after that he make a new codicil to his will  execute accord to the statute of fraud and perjury and whether this be a new  publication of his will so as to take in the land after purchase be the  question and it be resolve by Lord Cowper chief justice Trevor and judge Tracy  that it be not for since the statute of fraud the same form be necessary to  the republish of a will as to the first make in trevanion case a man hold up a  paper and say this be my will and it be hold that these word do not make it  his will because it be not read and this before the statute of fraud No parole  declaration refer to a paper in write will make a republication even before  the statute of Fauds this be plain from the case of bret v Rigden d Plowd d  and here be nothing pretend in write that import a republication for as for  the word in the codicil no one that read they can think they do and for the  parole declaration it be literal true for it remain a will as to his personal  estate e it be say that the court hold that the make of the codicil be no  republication of the will they not be affix together Simpson v Hornby Prec  Chan S c pale yellow e r S c vern and because since car c there shall be no  republication by implication but the will must be reexecuted otherwise a  devise of land shall not be good Acherley v Vernon comy Rep but see Abney v  miller atk Martin v savage Mod Gibson v Montford vezey Acherley v Vernon comy  Rep in which last case it be hold that a codicil sign and publish in the  presence of three witness be a republication of the will and that both make  but one will S c bro p c see also Carlton v Griffith burr pollen v pollen  vezey e the second point be that suppose the will republish yet it can convey  no title to the defendant because be claim as issue male to the devisee in  tail Bernard Granville who die live the testator and therefore it be a lapse  legacy a the earl of bath after take notice in this will that his land be  settle upon his son Charles and John in tail male devise and in case my son  shall have no issue then for the preservation of my name and family I devise  my say land unto my brother Bernard Granville and the heir male of his body  issue and Bernard die in the life of the testator leave issue Lord Lansdown  the defendant comy Rep a the court be of this opinion but the counsel insist  that this be a devise in tail and therein different from modern report er p  the case of bret v Rigden b Plowd b and that in this will the testator declare  that he so devise it for the preservation of his name and family and that the  republication be after the testator modern report know of the death of Bernard  Granville and therefore can not intend that Bernard who be dead shall take and  desire upon their reputation a special verdict it be grant c case cite in  respect to this second point be full v full cro Elizabeth which case be also  take notice of in Mod Rep steed v burier in which case resolve by both court  that there be no difference between a devise in fee and in tail as to this  purpose note to the former edition it be say that the court be clear in their  opinion on this point that the heir male of Bernard Granville can not take no  more than in the case of steed v burier Mod a grandson can take as son by the  republication of the will subsequent to the death of the son Simpson v Hornby  Prec Chan see also the case of turner v kett where it be determine that if a  devise to b and the heir of her body and for default of such issue then over  and b die in the lifetime of a and then a by a codicil confirm his will that  the heir of b take nothing though it appear that a know of the death of b and  of the birth of her son before he make the codicil term Rep c the counsel for  Lord Lansdown offer in evidence parole declaration of the testator that it be  his intention the issue male shall take by the will the counsel for the  plaintiff oppose this and refuse by the court note the case quote as to this  purpose be Molineux v Molineux d cro throw d where it be hold that if a will  refer to a thing in write it be altogether as good as if the write refer to be  insert in the will verbatim but that it be otherwise where the will refer to a  parole declaration for no regard be to be give to it though it be refer to by  the will e see Leon cheney case   and bertie v Falkland before Lord summer e  in the case of Littlebury v Buckley which be to this purpose a rule have  obtain in equity that where there be specific legacy and no residuary legatee  that there the residuum shall be divide accord to the statute of distribution  contrary to the commonlaw which give it to the executor now here the court  receive parole evidence to prove it to have be the intention of the testator  that the executor shall have the residuum and that it shall not be divide but  the reason why the court do this be express assign to be because it be in  affirmance of the commonlaw whereas here the evidence be offer in  contradiction to the commonlaw videlicet to enable modern report the issue to  take by purchase who by rule of commonlaw be to take by limitation this point  be likewise full settle in the case of Litton v Falkland a vern a that go  through the house of lord it be observe that most of these case be before the  statute of fraud and perjury stand only upon the statute for will S in write  and must receive a additional force from the statute of fraud indeed if a man  devise a estate to his son John and there be two son of that name or if a man  devise the manor of dale and there be two of that name parole evidence shall  be allow to explain which of the two the testator mean the reason of the law  in this point be clear and strong for if parole evidence be once allow to  explain a will and give it another sense than what can be collect from the  word of the will stand alone what purchaser under a will can be safe or what  lawyer can give his opinion upon a point that depend upon a will b see  Rashfield v careless Mod Peer wms petit v smith Peer wms Granville v Beaufort  Peer wms lake v lake Amb brown v Selwin case t t coote v Boyd bro c c Clinton  v Hooper bro c c Hornsey v finch bro c c b a special verdict be find c this  case be afterward agree between the party Prec Chan c modern report er p