
    WILL.
    ELISHA PARKHILL, EXECUTOR OF JAMES PARKHILL, against JESSE PARKHILL ET AL.
    
      Rutland,
    
    1819.
    APPEAL from the Judgb of Probate.
    In this case, it appeared, that after the publication of the will, in question, the testator had dqpded all his real estate; and the question was, whether such conveyance operated as an implied revocation of the will, in toto.
    
    For the defendants, Mallary contended :
    1. That the execution of the deed was inconsistent with the will, and therefore the law declares such act to be a complete revocation of the will. Bac. Ab. vol.7, p. 334, 366. 7 T. R. 412. 1 Bos. and Pul. 576. 3 Com. Dig. 396, 400. 2 Atk. 273.
    2. Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove, that the testator did not intend to revoke the will ; for, as the execution of the deed was a legal revocation — the intention of the testator not to have it considered a revocation, is of no avail, in opposition to the rule of law. Peake’s Ev. 437, 7 T. R. 409. 6 Jac. L. D. 402. 2 Atk. 579. 3 Atk. 804. 1 Bos. and Pull. 576*.
    3. The legacies are dependent on the dispositon of the real estate, and that being disposed of by deed, there is nothing left 'to give effect to the will. 3 Com. 400.
    
      For the executor, Langdon and Williams contended :
    That the testator’s giving a deed of all his real estate, c<i .converting it into personal property, is not a revocation of the will, except pro tanto, and cannot affect it as to personal property. 3 Wilson 512. 6 Jac. L. D. 448. 7 Bac. Ab.-344-5~ 6-r7-8.
   The Court decided : That the alteration or disposition of the real estate, subsequent to making and publishing a will, is not, in this State, an implied revocation of such will in toto.  