Q```` aca `"`cT§'"`¤K¤.i`Z`¤.EElia,;¢.i` aitiiiem
- 796. Tree, with the concurrence of the other members of the Court,"
lov`! laid down the following pofitions. Mdienu, Cl·iy`j%y}£¢·:.-tit. Where a feeond Willlis made, containing an exprefs claufe of revocation, the preceding Wdl,
- though not formally cancelled, is revoked.
ad. Vhere a iizcond Will is dellroyed witbord mw: the pre- cylingi Will, :3: having been cancelled,,is, generallyifpealting, 1. .-aj.r'a reriv . I gd. Vfhcre a fecond Will is cancelled, under eircumltarrces that manifelt an intention either to revive, or not to revive, the preceding Vil|, thofe circumftances muli be proved. - f nth. The rnere_a£t of making a fecond teftament, is a re: =r“¢- catron of a precedmg tellament, rn relation to perfonal edate ; I the law throwing the perfonal eflate on the executor as a truilee. III. It was fuggelled by Ingrrfell that in England an exe- { cutor is entitled in his own right to, the ;·y:`rIuuna of ’pcrfonal . eltate, undifpofed of by the Will; whereas in Panrjwlwrnia, the
- executor holds it only as trultee for the next of kin.
- [;$_|·# But, nr rm; Count: There is no fuch dillinétion to be
j B dl found in any A€t of Alfembly, or judicial determination. 'I`he ° ` next of kin are only entitled to perfonal efiate, in the cafe of in-
teltacy; and a man cannot Le inteitate, who has made an Exe-
x €u[0l'• ' The principal point in the canfe tnmed upon the (tate of Mr. Bru¢§%rd’s mind at the time of cancelling the fecond Will and declaring his intentionto die intellate; and the Jury being of opinion, from the evidence, that he was then in poffellion of a competent underfianding, found a Verdi& for the Defendant. Lrgeofa/I 8: R. Stockton (of N¢··rv-_7n_f·y) for the plaintiff] Lew- ix, III. Levy, 8: Tod, for the defendant.
- l - _ Gmarann’s, Cafe.
‘ " EORGE GREENE, having petitioned for a difcharge B, -.·»·"?.$. G ui;.l¢r the laws for the relief of infoivent d·:btors, one of · `° his creditors `was offered as a witnefs to prove that fevcral judgments had been eonfelfed by the petitioner, wiihout a valua- ble conlideration, and with a view to defraud. It was objected, Ihat a creditor was not a competent witnefs · as his teltimony would go to invalidate the judgments, as well as to the impri- fonment of thc petitioner. Br ·rr—r.t=. Coujvr :-·'l`his is a qucllion of fraud ; and we can perceive no juli: reafon , why 11 creditor lhould not be exa- 1-zxinlzd to afcertain whether, on that ground, the petitioner ought to
�
