Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/294

 288 Cases allirmed or reverfed in the 1791. havelxeen altercdbypnrol; but it mult have been exprcfs, not trvsa intentional, in the prefcnt, and nut in the future, renfe. GNL Or. Lrg. _; 1. 54. Svuinb. 531. Cro. L 1 r g. The evidence hercis not politive; it is mere fuppolition, that the Vill of acl: of making a fubfequcnt h'ill (even where its contents are unknown) fullicient in itfelf, as a revocation of a former Will ? The authorities direflly difaliirni the polition, where the fubfe- qncnt Vill doesnnt alter the tvbule tlifpolition uf the ellate, and if the fame fulemnities are necelliiry to rrmlr, which are rc · quired to nuke a Vill, there is not, in the prefent cafes, proof by two witneflbs of the contents of the Will of 1777. Beiirles, the paper called il fubfequent Will, does not appear to be more than a cudieil, as it is not proved that any Executurs were con- llituted; and both might, therefore, llanil together. There ia no proof tl1at the latter Vill dilpofetl of the pcrfunal eflate dif- ferently, but only that it increafezl the legacies. Perl:. 179. G:tL Orpb. Lrg. 53. I2. 3, CM. E. 7:1. P:·11:.Di··u. 538. S-wink. 532. Cru. E. 721. Cru. Car. 23. 4 r Slow. 537. 534. Sa/i. spa. Sin. P. CZ ]4Q. Hmlr. 37;. Cmp. 87. S. 3 IVH. 497. 2 Jil. Rep. 937. S. C.-gtlly. Does the dellruélion of the latter, revive the former, Vill P The intention of the party is un- doubtedly material upon this qucliion. The tellatrix ftnt for the Will ; but whether line cancelled it, with a view tu die in- tellate, or j'aum Lmnjn dellroyetl it, with a view to claim the whole cllate as heir at law, can only be explained by the eit- cumltances ; and there is one eircumllancc that iu llrong indeed, no lhew that {hc never meant to give to him the whole; name- ly, that _7nm.·.r Lzmyiu had arrived i11 Cumberland County before the making of the latelt Will, and yer the therein bequeathed to other perfens, legatics to a cvnliderabie amount. 'l`he cancel- ling ofa latter Will, umh-r eireuiiillainees lefs fureilile, has been deemed the revival of a former one. 4 Burr. 2;1z.—.;tl1ly. l- there any difference between the revocation of a Vill in limyjg- vani.1, and in Eugkuul, lince the liatute of frauds and perjuries? The dofkrine in the aft of Allktnbly { 1 wl. Dall. EJ}:. ,7. 64:1.} is the {lime as the duéttinc in thc llatnte, ay (mr. 2 4-. 3 and the eifeft lhould he equally uniform. 1•br tb: appellant, in reply. All the cake eitctl by the oppolite counfel, relate to rm! eltate in E.·:ghun!`, fublbquent to the llatutc of frauds and perjnries. Bot our pohiion is, that a fubfequent \'ill, or 'l.`el'lament, does, of itfelf, revoke all prior \'ills of _»w;.’3n.1I cllatc. A latter Tylililillflldl lixys Savin}. 1 S always infrin- I ges a former one; but a m’.*.·i/ is ditierem; and th-; tlillittetiott bctv1·ec11:1'l`elt:1n1e11tand	'ill is ellablilliud inCo1ty•.go. The prcl7:11t Tilln·;1>11oL Diund {ner wu any uthcr `Nill lhund) in the pollelliun
 * 777 in exprefs terms revoked all former Wills. 2d. Is the

�