A will may be republished so as to give the words of the will the same effect as if the will had been originally executed at the time of such republication, that is, so as to make it "speak" as of that time.27 Under the law as it formerly existed

262; Moore v. Rowlett, 269 111. 88, 109 N. E. 682; Flintham v. Bradford, 10 Pa. St. 82; Bates v. Hacking, 29 R. I. 1, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 937, 68 Atl. 622; Taylor v. Taylor, 2 Nott & Mcc (S. C.) 482.

25. James v. Marvin. 3 Conn. 576; Colvin v. Warford, 20 Md. 357; Scott v. Fink, 45 Mich. 241, 7 N. W. 799; Cheever v. North, 106 Mich. 390, 37 L. R. A. 561, 58 Am. St. Rep. 499, 64 N. W. 455. See Peck's Appeal from Probate, 50 Conn. 562; Fitzpatrick's Appeal, 87 Conn. 579, 89 Atl. 92; Hawes v. Nicholas, 72 Tex. 481, 2 L. R. A. 863, 10 S. W. 558.

26. Harvell v. Lively, 30 Ga.

315; Danley v. Jefferson, 150 Mich. 590, 121 Am. St. Rep. 640, 13 Ann. Cas. 242, 114 N. W. 470; In re Noon's Will, 115 Wis. 299, 95 Am. St. Rep. 944, 91 N. W. 670. See editorial note. 12 Columbia Law Rev. 353.

26a. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law. Sec.Sec. 2678, 2679.

The destruction of a codicil reviving a former revoked will has been decided not to have the effect of rendering the revival inoperative, if there was no Intention that it should have that effect. James v. Shrimpton 1 Prob. Div. 431.

27. 1 Jarman, Wills, L69; Williams, Executors ( 9th Ed.) 170.

In England, restricting the operation of a devise of lands to such lands as were owned by the testator at the time of execution of the will, and in those states in this country where the same rule still prevails, the effect of a republication is important, as it brings lands acquired between the date of execution and of republication within the operation of a general devise.28 But since the general change of the law in this respect, the doctrine of republication has lost much of its importance and it calls for consideration now chiefly in connection with the possibility of giving effect to a will orginally invalid,29 or which has been revoked,30 but not destroyed.

The republication may consist of a re-execution of the instrument with the same formalities as are necessary in the case of an absolutely new will. Accordingly, while, previous to the Statute of Frauds, it might be by means of an oral declaration even in the case of land,31 since that time the same formalities have been required in the republication, as in the making, of a will of land.32 The making and execution of a codicil to a will has likewise the effect, in the absence of any appearance of a contrary intention, of a republication of the will, and it is immaterial whether the codicil

28. Beckford v. Parnecott Cro. Eliz. 493; Barnes v. Crow, " 4 Brown Ch. 2; Luce v. Dimock. 1 Root (Conn.) 82; Jack v. Shoen-berger, 22 Pa. St. 416.

29. Burge v. Hamilton, 72 Ga. 568; Brown v. Riggin, 94 111. 560, Manship v. Stewart, 181 Ind. 299, 104 N. E. 505; Barnes v. Phillips, 184 Ind. 415, 111 N. E. 419; Beall v. Cunningham, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 390, 39 Am. Dec. 120; Mccurdy v. Neall, 42 N. J. Eq. 333, 7 Atl. 566; Smith v. Runkle, - (N. J.) - 97 Atl. 296; Stevens v. Myers, 62 Ore. 372, 121 Pac. 434; Walton's Estate, 194 Pa. 528, 45

Atl. 426; Skinner v. American Bible Soc, 92 Wis. 209, .65 N. W. 1037.

30. In re Cutting's Estate, 172 Cal. 191, 155 Pac. 1002, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1171; Brown v. Clark, 77 N. Y. 369; Burge v. Hamilton, 72 Ga. 568; Wickoff's Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 281, 53 Am. Dec. 597.

31. Beckford v. Parnecott, Cro. Eliz. 493.

32. Jackson v. Potter, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 312; Love v. Johnston, 34 N. C. 355, 1 Woerner, Administration Sec. 56.

Expressly so provides, or whether it is actually annexed to the will.33 In the absence of an expression of a contrary intention, the republication of a will, whether by re-execution, or by the making of a codicil, is of the will as changed by any pre-existing codicils, they being in effect a part of the will.34 The mere fact that the will is referred to by its original date does not take the case out of the rule.35

33. 1 Williams, Executors (9th Ed.) 164; Barnes v. Crow, 4 Brown Ch. 2; Freeman v. Hart, 61 Colo. 455, 158 Pac. 305; Pope v. Pope, 95 Ga. 87, 22 S. E. 245; Hobart v. Hobart, 154 111. 610, 45 Am. St. Rep. 151; Manship v. Stewart, 181 Ind. 299, 104 N. W. 505; In re Murfleld's Will, 74 Iowa, 479; Brimmer v. Sohier, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 118; Mccurdy v. Neall, 42 N. J. Eq. 333, 7 Atl.

566; Van Alstyne v. Van Alstyne, 28 N. Y. 375; Stevens v. Myers, 62 Ore. 372, 121 Pac. 434; Lin-nard's Appeal, 93 Pa. 313, 39 Am. Rep. 753; Skinner v. American Bible Soc, 92 Wis. 209, 65 N. W. 1037.

34. 1 Williams, Executors (9th Ed.) 171; Crosbie v. Macdoual. 4 Ves. 610.

35. Green v. Tribe, 9 Ch. Div. 231.

2 R. P. - 42