Case Name: Bates v. Holman, Executor of Bates
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1809-04
Citations: 3 Hen. & M. 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bates v. Holman, Executor of Bates.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 743–758

Head Matter:
Bates v. Holman, Executor of Bates.
April, 1809.
Wills — Revocation —Codicil—Case at Bar. — A testator made a will, in due form of law, to which he afterwards subjoined a codicil: he then made a second will, and annexed a postscript to it, by which he “revoked all former wills,” and signed the postscript; the second will was cancelled by cutting his name out from the body of it, but leaving the postscript with his name subjoined to it. This paper was carefully preserved by the testator, as also his first will; both of which were found after his death; held that the postscript to the second will was a substantive revocation of the first will, and that the cancelling of the second will did not necessarily cancel the postscript also, so as to set up the first, as the will of the testator.
Same — Same—Parol Evidence. — Parol evidence is admissible in such cases, to shew the situation oi the testator, and quo animo, the cancellation was made.
Charles Fleming Bates, attorney at law, at that time an unmarried man, on the 16th of November, 1799, made the following will: “It is the earnest request of C. F. Bates, that George Holman (his most particular friend) will take upon himself the burden of the execution of this instrument, which is intended for the last will and testament *of the subscriber, and that he will hold all the property of which the subscriber may die possessed, and not otherwise disposed of, in trust for the benefit of the family of Thomas F. Bates, and principally for the benefit of Caroline M. Bates, and under her own free and particular control, so long as she continues the wife or widow of the said Thomas F. Bates ; and if she should marry again, and be in need of any thing, then to such proportion as the said trustee in his judgment shall think right, not exceeding one-third of the estate of the subscriber; and at the death or marriage of the said Caroline, the unappropriated remnant, if any, to — equally among the children of Thomas F. Bates, except that Isaac, my slave, shall be free, at all events, at twenty-one years of age; and my slave Charlotte shall also be free at eighteen years of age. And if George Holman carry this into effect, he shall use his discretion as to the mode of making the estate command the greatest value, and shall have ten per centum for his trouble. In testimony whereof I, Charles F. Bates, have hereunto affixed my name and seal, at Belmont, this sixteenth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine.
(seal.) “Ch. F. Bates.”
On the 23d of September, 1801, he annexed a codicil to the above will, in the following words:
“Codicil.
“I wish the balance of the purchase money of Belmont to be raised by my said executor, as soon as possible, from the debts due me, and a title made to my said executor, as trustee, in like manner as of the personal estate: and, as to Isaac and Charlotte, I revoke to, preceding part of my will, but not as to any thing else. “September 23d, 1801.
(seal.) “Ch. F. Bates.”
On the 2d of September, 1803, he made another will, as follows:
*"‘The last will and testament of Ch. F. Bates, written with' his own hand, at Richmond, the second day, of September, 1803.”
“My most ardent wish is to render" my mother happy and easy during life; also my father, and all his children, as long as they or any of them continue in his family, remain single, or, in the discretion of my executor, shall need assistance; for effecting which purpose, I appoint- my executor trustee of all my estate, both real and personal, to manage at his discretion, in such manner as he think best; but not to be at liberty to sell my real property, or any part thereof. I desire all debts which appear due by my books to be paid, and no others, unless proved by law. After the death of my father and mother, and the arrival to age of twenty-one years of my brother Edward, which ever shall happen last, I desire the whole of my estate not otherwise particular**#***se¿, t0 g0 to my brothers and *##**##( equal proportions, and if any be dead, to the proper heirs of the deceased, I desire that Edward Bates be schooled at my expense, and brought up at the discretion of my father, on my estate. I give my two sisters, Anna and Caroline Matilda, one hundred dollars each, to be paid as soon as my executor shall be able to pay it, without injury to my creditors. If my sister Margaret shall be single at my death, .or married to a man worth less than three thousand dollars, I give her one hundred dollars, to be paid as soon as possible.
“I have a daughter called Clemensa, at Walter Keeble’s, in Cumberland, I declare her to be free to every right and privilege which she can enjoy by the laws of Virginia. I most particularly direct, that she be educated in the best manner that ladies are educated in Virginia. I give' *her my lot in the town of Carters-ville, and three hundred dollars, to be - laid out at interest, renewed yearly, and paid when she marry or come of age. I appoint George Holman my sole executor, and I trust he will not refuse to act.
“I revoke all other wills heretofore made by me.
“C.-E. Bates.”
[Here the testator’s name was cut out, nearly in the shape of a coffin, leaving some parts of the letters visible.]
These two wills, and the codicil to the first, were proven to have been wholly in the hand-writing of the testator.
The first will and codicil was folded up in the form of a letter, sealed with three seals, and addressed to “Caroline M. Bates,” which was the name of the testator’s mother, with whom it was deposited.
The second will was folded up. and indorsed “C. E. Bates’s will,” and was laid away smoothly in a small box, with other papers, and curious pieces of coin, and deposited in a trunk.
Both the superscription on the first will, and the indorsement on the second, was written by the testator.
The first will was written on a sheet of letter paper, and the whole of it is contained on the first page, except the words “trouble. In testimony whereof I, Ch. F. Bates, have hereunto affixed my name and seal, at Belmont, this sixteenth day of November,” &c. After which follows the codicil, as above inserted, which does not occupy the whole of the second page.
The second or cancelled will was written on half a sheet of letter paper, folded so as to form four pages of equal size. The will occupies the whole of the first and second pages, and concludes so near the bottom of the second page that there is not more than room enough to write the name of the testator, and the postscript; which last appears to be written with rather a smaller hand, and with the lines closer together, than the body of'the will. The will and the ^postscript seem to be written with the same pen and ink. In cutting out the name of the testator, the letters and words which occupied the places in the original on the opposite side of the paper, now marked with stars, were also cut out.
The first will, with the codicil annexed, was offered for probate in the District Court of Richmond, by George Holman, the executor therein named; which was opposed by Mary Heath Bates, widow of the testator, who produced the second will with the postscript, as a revocation of the first. The District Court established the first as the will of Charles E. Bates, from which judgment an appeal was taken, by the widow, to this Court.
In addition to the testimony arising - from the face of the papers, a variety of parol evidence was introduced, in the Court of Appeals.
It was admitted that Charles E. Bates was married on the 28th of May, 1806, and died on the 30th of May, 1808.
Edward Bolling, a witness, proved, that about three or four weeks before the death of the testator, he was in his company, and the conversation turned on the subject of wills. Mr. Bates said it was inexcusable for a man not to keep a will by him, particularly a man in his situation; that he was determined not to be without one manjr days; 'that no business should prevent it; and that he had rather die intestate, than not write his will himself. In answer to interrogatories, the witness further stated, that this conversation took place at Mr. Bates’s own house and that Mr. Bates had had a child born during his marriage with the present appellant, but that he had been informed it was born dead.
William Gray, another witness, was at the house of the. testator about twelve or fifteen days before his death ; he was then in good health, and requested the witness to walk with him to the family burying-ground, observing, at the same time, that he wished to consult him as to the best mode of inclosing it. While at the graveyard, a conversation ensued, as to the usual ceremony at the burial of the dead ; when the testator observed, that he was pleased *with the masonic, and wished to be buried in that way. The witness asked him whether, if he should be the longest liver, he should take notice of what he had said, and cause him to be buried with those ceremonies. He replied no; it was unnecessary, as he intended to leave instructions to that effect in his will.
Being interrogated, the witness said, that the testator did not say whether he had a will by him or not; that his child was born in his life-time, but it was always understood to have been born dead; that the cancelled will was found in a little box, in a trunk, carefully laid away with other papers, in which box there were also several curious pieces of coin, of gold, silver and copper; but there was no other circumstance inducing an opinion that it was carefully laid away, except that it was smoothly placed in the situation above mentioned; that the testator was one of the most precise and methodical men in the world; that, during the early part of his illness, the witness believed him to have been in a situation to have dictated a will, though not to have written it himself; but in the latter part of his illness he did not believe him to have been capable, being sometimes deranged, and talking rather wild; that the testator expressed no wish, in the hearing of the witness, to make a will, during his illness, in the early part of which he did not appear to be very sick, but was so af-terwards; that the witness had been called on, in his neighbourhood, to -write one will, and that very eminent counsel resided about ten or twelve miles from the testator; but that he had heard the testator say, that he preferred writing his own will; that the trunk, in which the cancelled will was found, was such as is usually kept in a house, being larger than a travelling trunk; that the witness had no reason to suppose the testator apprehended immediate death, in the early part of his sickness, as he did not appear to be very ill; and, that during the whole of his illness, he never said any thing, in the presence of the testator, about his having a will, or his wishing to make one.
^'Winifred Heath, another witness, was at Mr. Bates’s, during his last illness, and heard him express a wish that he had a good will; at other times, he said he wished some person could make him a good will. In a conversation between the witness, and the mother of the testator, about his illness, Mrs. Bates said, she wondered if Charles had a will, to which the witness replied, she had heard him say that he wished he had a will. His mother observed, that he used to keep a will by him, before he was married; that he had made one and given it to her to keep, and that, afterwards, he took it from her, but whether he returned it or not, she could not tell. He then made another will, and g'ave it to his mother; and after his marriage, as she told the witness, (to the best of the witness’s recollection,) he asked her for it, and took it and cut his name.out. At another time, her son Charles said, mother, are you sure you gave up that will? and she answered, yes 1 Mrs. Bates, then pausing, turned to her daughter Sally, and said, Sally, are you sure that I gave up that will? and she answered, yes, mother, you did.
On being cross-examined, the witness said, that the above conversation passed during the last illness of the testator, who was sick for eight days only; that he was, at that time, extremely ill, and not in his senses; that he was a very affectionate son, but the witness had never heard him say any thing about making a provision for his mother; that he was often delirious, but not so when he made the observations about his will, which was about the middle part of his illness; that the day after the death of the testator, a conversation took place between Mrs. Bates, the mother, and Mrs. Bates, the widow, when old Mrs. Bates asked her son’s widow what she intended to do? whether she intended to administer on the estate? To which she replied, that she did not know, but would consult her friends. Old Mrs. Bates said, that she wished Charles had made a will; and her daughter-in-law said, that the law provided, and she would have her’s during her life, and after she was dead she would not want it. Old Mrs. Bates said, it would have *been more satisfaction to have had it, to do as she pleased with it; that old Mrs. Bates was with her son the greater part of his illness, and bore his death with great fortitude; and that his death was not apprehended till about two days before he died; that Mr. Bates’s child was born about six or seven weeks before his death, and was born dead.
William Miller, another witness, was present when the first will was found. It was found by Miss Matilda Bates, in a part of the house occupied by her mother, old Mrs. Bates, and brought into the room open, where she and the witness were. On Miss Matilda’s handing it to her mother, she asked what it was? and was told it was a will. She then asked her daughter what she handed it to her for; and, looking upon it, let it drop from her eyes. The witness did not know by whom the seals of the will were broken, but they were so when the paper was handed by Miss Matilda to her mother; that old Mrs. Bates appeared to be much affected when she saw the will, and seemed as if she would faint, and one of her daughters stepped up to her and fanned her; but the witness could not tell whether this appearance was the effect of surprise, of satisfaction, or of grief. This will was found after administration had been granted on the estate, and after the other will, with the name cut out, had been discovered.
William Clarkson, another witness, proved that the child Olemensa appeared to be an object of the testator’s affection; that he put it with the witness to board, on'the last day of October, 1805, and it was then living at the house of the witness; that the testator furnished it with clothes, and reg-ularljT paid its board; that when he brought the child to the witness’s house, he told him that her father’s name was George Alexander Stevens Trueheart; that she was then about four years old, and when she was eight he intended to send her to Bethlehem College, in Pennsylvania, till her education should be as complete as any lady’s in *the country, and that afterwards he would make her fortune at least five hundred pounds.
Frederick Woodson, was a near relation of the testator’s, and had had repeated conversations with him on the subject of his wills, until a short time before his death. In the spring of the year preceding his death, he was at the house of the witness, and speaking of his wills, he observed, that he had a will, which he wrote many years ago, but that he did not like it, and would make another in a very short time; that he was at the house of the witness monthly, or oftener, having usually lodged there while attending an adjacent Court, in which he practised the law; and that the latter conversation was shortly before his death. He told the witness, that he did not approve of the will he had, and, in making another, he meant to make his mother independent, in some degree; he meant to give her something at her own disposal, but did not tell the witness what it was. This was one among several conversations had with the witness about that time, and arose from his finding fault of the testator’s conduct with respect to his mother; in not taking that care of her which he ought to have done, as the witness had been informed. It was a kind of admonition or reprimand from the witness, which he often repeated.
In answer to interrogatories, the witness said, that he understood from the testator, that his. second will was can-celled, and that his first will was then in existence, and in the keeping of his mother, but that he did not like it; that one reason for his disapproving of the will, was, that it did not sufficiently provide for his mother; the other was, that the property was in some measure incumbered, which the witness understood, from hearing the will read, was the control given over it to the executor; that when he heard that Charles F. Bates had died intestate, he supposed the will had been destroyed; and never had any conversation with any of the family about it, till after it had been found; that he was induced to give the reprimand to his relation, from having heard, that, of late years, and since his marriage, *he had not treated his mother well; that he understood, from the testator, that his second will was destroyed, but not in what particular way; that he was informed of this, before the conversations last had on that subject; and that he understood him, that his first will was in force, and in the keeping of his mother.
Darner Bradshaw stated, that, in May, 1805, when Thomas F. Bates, father of the testator, died, the witness was in company with the testator, who informed him that he had made a will, taking care of his mother. He repeated the same declaration, in the month óf ífebruary or March, before he died. What led to the' last conversation was some difference which had taken place in the testator’s family; when he told the witness how much he was disturbed; and that he had made a will, and taken care of his mother; and that all the people in the world should not prevent it.
Charles Hopkins had lived in the family of Mr. Bates as late as the December preceding his death. In consequence of the will of the witness’s father, the conversation turned on the subject of wills. Mr. Bates told the witness that he had, for a number of years, always kept a will by him and he always condemned it in others not to keep a will by them. The witness had had other conversations with him to the same effect; and understood him as having then a will by him.
Christopher Anthony, the last witness introduced, had had a conversation with Mr. Bates on the subject of his will, but could state nothing as to the time with certainty. Mr. Bates mentioned to the witness that he had always kept a will by him, and told him whom he had 'ippointed his executor, w.ho was Major Holman, named in the will produced.
On being interrogated, he said, that nothing else material passed betw'een him and Mr. Bates, on the subject, except that he said he should not die intestate. The witness had *been acquainted with Mr. Bates for about seven years, and thinks this conversation took place about the time of his marriage, whether before or after, the witness could not say.
This cause was very elaborately argued, in November, 1808, by George K. Taylor and Hay, for the appellant, and by Call, Wirt and Randolph, for the appellee; and again in April, 1809, by the same counsel for the respective parties, with the addition of Wickham, for the appellant. To notice the whole ground taken by counsel, in argument, in commenting on the evidence, and animadverting on the situation of the testator and his connexions, from which an inference might be drawn whether he meant to leave a will, or to die intestate, would of itself form materials for a volume. It must suffice briefly to mention the leading points of law, relied on by both parties, with the authorities cited to support them.
For the appellant, and in support of an intestacy, it was contended, 1st. that the postscript annexed, to the second will was, of itself, a substantive revocation, in' writing, of the first will, within the meaning of the act of Assembly, which requires nothing more than a written declaration, as one of the modes of revoking a will, and that the care with which C. F. Bates preserved this paper, it being deposited among his most curious coins, when he could as easily have destroyed the whole paper, as cut his name out of a part, was conclusive proof that he meant it to operate as a revocation of his first will.
2. Admitting the second will to have been wholly revoked, still, although it might be true, in general, that the cancelling of a second will would set up the first, yet the rule did not apply where the second will contained a clause of revocation, and that parol testimony, of the intention to revoke, was inadmissible. On the part of the appellant the following authorities were relied on: Powell on Devises, 549, 551; *Gowp. 53, in Burtonshaw v. Gilbert; Toller’s Daw of Executors, 18; Doug. 39, in Brady v. Cubitt; 3 Call, 334, Yerby v. Yerby; 2 East, 530; Kenebel v. Scraft'on and others; 4 Ves. jun. 448; 5 Term Rep. 50; Doe, ex dem. Lancashire v. Lancashire; Toiler, 19; 1 Bos. & Pull. 577; Good title, ex dem. Holford et al. v. Otway; 1 Saund. 277a, note; 3 Ves. jun. 650; 5 Ves. jun. 664; 3 Atk. 798; 3 Com. Dig. 9; 7 Bac. Abr. 755; Gwil. edit. Powell on Devises, 449, 535, 666; 2 Johnson’s N. Y. Rep. 31, Jackson, ex dem. Coe and others, v. Kniffen ; Roberts on Stat Frauds, 465; 3 Atk. 552.
For the appellee, and in favour of the first will, it' was insisted, 1st. That the second will and postscript annexed, was one entire instrument, made at the same time with the will itself; was usually inserted in all wills as a mere matter of form; and that, by cancelling the second will, the first was set up of course. 2. That it made no difference whether the second will had a clause of revocation or not, the opinion of Powell to the contrary notwithstanding, which was not supported by the authorities cited by him; and that the preservation of the second will, by the testator, was probably the mere effect of singularity; for if he had really intended to revoke the second will, he, being a lawyer, would have done it by some act less equivocal than by a postscript, consisting of nine words only, annexed to a cancelled will; and that parol evidence was clearly admissible, to shew the intention to revoke. The authorities relied on by the appellee’s counsel, were the following: 4 Burr. 2512, Goodright, ex dem. Glazier v. Glazier, as expressly in point; Doug. 40, per Buller, J., in Burton-shaw v. Gilbert, 2B1. Com. 449, 1 P. Wms. 343; Onions v. Tyrer, Loft. 575, in Har-wood v. Goodright, 1 Ves. 187; Willet v. Sandford, 2 Ves. 243; Fuller v. Hooper; Roberts on Stat. Frauds, 38; 6 Cruise’s Digest, (Riley’s edit.) 80, 85.
Tlie principal case Is cited in foot-notes to Glasscock v. Smither. 1 Call 479; Yerby v. Yerby, 3 Call 334. See monographic note on "Wills.”
The letters wanting- are “ly aispo.” They were cancelled, by cutting out the name of the tes--tator on the opposite side of the will. — Note in Original Edition.
The words “sisters in,” are supposed to have been originally inserted, but cut out, by the same act which produced the obliteration above mentioned. — Note in Original Edition.
Rev. Code, v. 1, c. 92, s. 8, p. 160.

Opinion:
JUDGE TUCKER
delivered the following opinion, on the first argument.
*This case has been very ably and elaborately argued by the counsel on both sides. A great deal has been said upon the evidence, and not a few remarks have been thrown out on the conduct of the parties. The testimony in my opinion may well be reconciled: all the witnesses appear to be persons of clear understandings and respectable characters: they all speak of conversations with the testator at different times, and in different places, and all those conversations (except the few words which one of the witnesses heard him say during his last illness, expressing a wish that he had a good will, or that he had somebody to write a good will for him) happened while he was in perfect health, and in the prime of life; although, as it turned out, he was within a few weeks of his grave. There is nothing in the testimony, or in the evidence, as X conceive, to impeach the conduct or character of any of the parties; a circumstance which I mention for the sake of those who may have been hurt by the sarcasms and insinuations which were more than once indulged in the argument of the cause; and which evidently have had the effect of wounding the feelings of respectable persons, without advancing (at least in my opinion) the cause of their clients respectively. I
The counsel have also favoured us with a discussion of the whole doctrine, concerning implied revocations, and republications of last wills and testaments, and I am happy to make them my acknowledgments for it. I have turned to the numerous cases and elementary treatises they have cited, and have endeavoured to draw from them all the information which may enable me, as well on future occasions as the present, to form a correct judgment on that important subject. Many of these cases turn upon particular points in the jurisprudence of England, which no longer exist in this country. It may therefore be doubted how far that particular class of cases, which are founded upon the strict words of the statute of wills in England, may be applicable to similar cases in this country, since our last statute of wills has been in force; by which a provision materially different from the English statute has been introduced.
Another numerous class of cases, arising *out of the different expressions used in the penning of the 5th and 6th section of the statute of frauds and perjuries, 29 Car. II, concerning the execution of wills of land, and the revocation of them, as noticed by Mr. Douglass, at the end of Right v. Price, Doug. 232, and by Mr. Powell, in his Treatise on Devises, vol. 2, p. 249, 2d Lond. edit, and by Mr. Roberts on Frauds, p. 460 to 465, I think are not likely to be considered as leading cases in this country; since the 4th section of our statute requires a revocation of a will of lands to be executed in the same manner as a devise thereof. And this Court have already in the case of Glascock v. Smithers and Hunt, 1 Call, 479, given to the 7th section, which relates to revocation of a will of chattels, such an exposition as will probably stand in no need of any comment, support, or contradiction from foreign authority. The only class of implied revocations, which can in any manner be applied to this case is, that where the revocation has been made Dy some declaration in writing, neither changing the estate of the testator in the lands, or other property, nor executed animo revocandi, as in the case of Beard v. Beard, 3 Atk. 72, in which Lord Hardwicke held a will of personal estate to be revoked by a void deed made to the testator's wife.
So where a testator devised lands to his sister in fee, and afterwards by indenture let the same lands to her for sixty years, to commence after his death. This was held to be a revocation in toto, and not pro tanto only. Coke v. Bullock, 2 Cro. 49, cited Powell on Devises, vol. 2, 227. So an agreement for a partition of lands, hold as parceners, has been established against a conveyance and against a devise, ratifying and confirming that conveyance, although such agreement was executed in the presence of two witnesses only: the Lord Chancellor declaring the devise to be revoked by that agreement. 5 Ves. jun. 648, Knollys v. Alcock. The last case is perhaps referable to that class, in which, it has been held, that the least change or alteration, in the nature of the estate, though not in the testator's interest or property therein, has been construed to operate as a revocation.
*If Courts have been thus favourable to the doctrine of implied revocations, can any good reason be assigned, why they should set their faces against express revocations, made according to the very terms and directions of the statute? For, it is admitted that if the first will of Mr. Bates be revoked, it is by virtue of an express revocation in writing, wholly written by himself, and signed by himself, or not at all. 'What then are the facts, as to this naked point?
Charles F. Bates made his will in 1799, to which he added a codicil about two years after. In September, 1803, he made another will, differing very considerably from the first. To this will he subscribed his name. Afterwards, as is evident from the paper itself, upon the same paper, and somewhat below his name, he added these words, on one side of the paper, like the postscript to a letter: "I revoke all other wills heretofore made by me:" to which he again subscribed his name, which still remains uncancelled and unobliterated.
This second will, with the declaration in writing thereto added, is found after his death, in a small box, with other papers, and some money and coins, carefully put away and deposited in a large trunk, in his house. He had with great. apparent care cut out his name first subscribed to the will, thereby cancelling that to all intents and purposes. But for what reason, or from what motives, he left the declaration of an intention to revoke all former wills, standing unobliterated, and his name still remaining thereto, we are not told, nor is there one title of evidence, which relates to that particular fact. The declaration itself is as perfect at this moment, as it was the moment he had written and subscribed his name to it. No man can deny that at that time he intended this declaration to operate as a revocation of his first will. No man can say that it does not now appear in as palpable and intelligible a manner as it did then. There is no evidence of what passed in the testator's mind when he cut out his name in one place, and left it standing in another, but the paper itself. That, and that only, must speak his intention. If it had happened, that in his last illness he *had directed this paper to be brought to him, had declared himself dissatisfied with its contents, generally, and had .desired any friend who was present to tear it to pieces, or throw it into the fire, and that friend, instead of doing so had said, "itwill be sufficient to cut out your name," and had done so, in the testator's presence; I admit that such parol evidence as this would have been proper to explain that which might need explanation; as where a testator should throw the ink, instead of the sand, upon his will, through mistake: but in the present case we have no testimony whatsoever that bears upon this particular fact. I therefore reject the whole of it on both sides, as having no relation whatsoever to that point, upon which the cause, in my opinion depends. I consider this declaration, then, wholly written, and separately signed by Mr. Bates, as an express statutory revocation of all former wills made by him, utterly independent of, and unconnected with, his second will; and by the maker left in full force, at the time of can-celling that second will, and remaining in full force at the time of his death.
But an objection was taken to the want of a date to it. Although the preceding paper is void, as a will, being cancelled, it furnishes a direct evidence as to the date of this instrument, that it was posterior, not only to the first will, but that the execution of it, at least, was posterior to the second will. It bears date September, 1803. Suppose this act of revocation had been written on the back of a letter bearing the same date, or having a postmark of the same date; would a Court shut their eyes against such evidence, though there were no date to the instrument itself? I conceive not. A Jury, upon an issue of devisavit vel non, would most certainly find the revocation as made at or after the date of the letter, or the postmark; and I think this Court may do the same, without sending the parties to a Jury.
Upon these grounds I am of opinion that the judgment of the District Court, admitting the first will to record, ought to be totally reversed.
* JUDGE ROANE
was of a different opinion, and gave his reasons at large, for affirming the judgment of the District Court.