Hten Couar- or Eiutoas aan {errata. 237 that he had ufually inferted fueh a claufe in all the Vfills he 1792. wrote; and _'feLn Ray, a fubfcribing witnefs to the Will of 1779, vw`) fwears, that, when it was executed, the teltatrix deelzred it to be her lafl Vill, and that {he revoked all former Wills. The legatees were generally the fame, in tl1eVills of 177 5 and r779; but the legacies were larger in the laflc, on account of the then depreciated Rate of the paper bills of credit emitted by Congrefs. The Will of 1779 had been delivered to the teftatrix about ten
- j days before her death, by at Mrr.Lim1, whom the had fent for it,
to Oliver And.·$n, who then had both Vills in his cuitody; but the Vill of 1779 has not been feen afterwards. fame: Lau;/Eu, the appellant, is the eldefl fon of james Ld’l¢H, an only bm- ther of the teltatrix, who had no lifter; but her brother had two other fons, named Them: and 1%-.:11:5.1, and no other dcfceud- ants. The teltatxix had induced her nephew, jamer, to come from Ireland to Pemw·I·uaniu,witlt his family,t`ome years before her death, and about a week before that event received them, with their ellkéts, into her houfe,and a few days after {he had obtained the Vllill of 1 779, from O’f9€l'AIld¢fli2II• For fome weeks before her death {he exprelfed great kindnefs for the appellant, and frequently faid, ** all her ellate mult be his." But when the Will of 1779 was exeeuted,1he one of 1775 was not cancelled; becaufe the teflcatrix was then out of humour with the appel- lant, and {he was afraid left the will of 1779 might get into his hands, or be loft; and, in fuch cafe, {he delired Oliver Ander- jan to produce the will of 1775, as he has depofcd. Upon this liatement the queltion arcfe,—whether the Will of 1779, (whofe contents did not appear, but from the depolition of Oliver Ander/511) was a revocation of the Will of 1775? For tl·e njipelletnr, two propolitions were {lated, and the cor- refpondiug authorities cited :--1ll. That the Vl'ill of 1 777, was a revocation of the NViIl of 1775, in ae}, as well as intention,. either of which is fuliicient. Moore 177. 3 dla!. 260- Q:. l43. Of qfEx. 20. Swiub. 1 5. 52 5. Cargo. 9c. Gad. Or. Leg. 5 1. 54. Cru. L115. 1 Roll. A.i»·.61.;. 2 Eg.-Abr.771.-—ad. 'l`l¤·-it the mere cancelling of a latterV`ill, much lcfs the miflaying or lofs of 2 latterW`ill,is not a revival of Z1 formerVt’ill: The cancelling may be done with a view to die inteltare; and the millaying may be accidental; and the W'ill of 1 777, being in writing, can only, by the af}; of Allembly, be annulled by writing. 3 Ark. 799. Doug 36. tively:. 49. 1 P H'1:1. 343. 3.15. 4. Bm-1- 2513. 4g55. 47o. Paw. Dev. 5 34. 53 5. 1 wl. 1%.-::1. L. {Dall E15!.] p. 5 3. KZ`?. 2. 6. f For the Appellm, the cali: was conlidcred in various points of view. 1ll. Does the law of 1’em;6·l·u¤ni;1 permit the |`f'U0C1‘1/l0/10f :1 Will by parcl, or mufl it be in •wri:£::g? The aét of Allembly declatres that it iltall he in writing. 1 7:L Dall Edi!. p. 55. 2. 6. l11}i`·gLu:¢L it is true, a Villn1i,gl1t have
�
