63. Olmstead's Estate, 122 Cal. 224, 54 Pac. 745; Woodflll v. Pat-ton, 76 Ind. 575, 40 Am. Rep. 269; Townshend v. Howard, 86 Me. 285, 29 Atl. 1077; Semmes v. Semmes, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 388; In re White's Will, 25 N. J. Eq. 501; Evans' Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 238.

64. Bell v. Fothergill, L. R. 2 Prob. & Div. 148; Sanders' Adm'r v. Babbitt, 106 Ky. 646, 51 S. W. 163; Whitehead v. Kirk, 104 Miss. 776, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 187, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1051. 61 So. 737, 62 So. 432; Smock v. Smock, 11 N. J. Eq. 156; Cutler v. Cutler, 130 N. C. 1, 57 L. R. A. 209, 89 Am. St. Rep. 854, 40 S. E. 689; That the signature was torn "through" has been regarded as creating a presumption of revocation. In re Wellborn's Will, 165 N. C. 636, 81 S. E. 1023.

65. This is so, even though the seal is not necessary to the validity of the will. Price v.

Powell, 3 Hurl. & N. 341; Avery v. Pixley, 4 Mass. 460. See In re White's Will, 25 N. J. Eq. 501.

66. That such a partial revocation may be effected, see Miles' Appeal, 68 Conn. 237, 36 L. R. A. 176; Brown's Will, 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 56; Townshend v. Howard, 86 Me. 285, 29 Atl. 1077; Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Thom, 117 Md. 154, 83 Atl. 45; Bigelow v. Gillott, 123 Mass. 102, 25 Am. Rep. 32; Michigan Trust Co. v. Fox, 192 Mich. 699, 159 N. W. 332; Re Kirkpatrick, 22 N. J. Eq. 463; Barfield v. Carr, 169 N. C. 574, 86 S. E. 498; In re Wood's Estate, 247 Pa. 377, 93 Atl. 483; Brown v. Brown, 91 S. C. 101, 74 S. E. 135. That it cannot, see Law v. Law, 83 Ala. 432, 3 So. 752; Lovell v. Quitman, 88 N. V. 377, 42 Am. Rep. 254; Giffin v. Brooks, 48 Ohio St. 211, 31 N. E. 734; Hartz v. Sobel, 136 Ga. 565, 71 S. E. 995.

In case the will of a decedent, which he is known to have made, and of which he retained the custody, cannot be found, it is presumed to have been destroyed by him with the intention of revoking it.68 This presumption may, however, be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, as when it is shown that there was no change in the testator's desire to benefit the persons named in the will, or circumstances appear calculated to raise a suspicion that the will was wrongfully destroyed by a person other than testator.69

- Dependent relative revocation. "Where the act of destruction is connected with the making of another will, so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition intended to be substituted, such will be the legal effect of the transaction ; and therefore, if the will intended to be substituted is inoperative from defect of attestation or any other cause, the revocation fails also, and the original will remains in force."70 This principle of "dependent relative" revocation, as it is termed, has been applied in the case of the cancellation of clauses in the will by testator with the intention of substituting other clauses, but without re-executing the will after making such alterations, and the cancellation has been held to be nugatory as a revocation.71 The same doctrine was held to apply when the testator destroyed a will under the mistaken impression that a previous will would be thereby validated, and with the intention of setting up such former disposition.72 The fact, however, that the act of destruction is accompanied by an intention to make another will in the future cannot prevent such act from operating as a revocation.73

67. Miles' Appeal, 68 Conn. 237, 36 L. R. A. 176, 36 Atl. 39; Eschbach v. Collins, 61 Md. 478; Gardner v. Gardiner, 65 N. H. 230, 8 L. R. A. 383, 19 Atl. 651.

68. Griffith v. Higinbotom, 262 111. 126, 104 N. E. 233; Idley v. Bowen, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 227; Knapp v. Knapp, 10 N. Y. 276; Foster's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 67; Harris v. Harris, 10 Wash. 555; In re Valentine's Will, 93 Wis. 46, 67 N. W. 12..

69. Patten v. Poulton, 1 Swab. & Tr. 55; Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653; Scoggins v. Turner, 98

N. C. 135, 3 S. E. 719; Jackson v. Hewlett, 114 Va. 573, 77 S. E. 518; Harris v. Harris, 10 Wash. 555; See note 28 Am. St. Rep. at p. 347; Schouler, Wills, Sec. 402.

70. 1 Jarman, Wills, 119; See, also, 1 Williams, Executors (9th Ed.) 126 et seq.; Onions v. Tyrer, 2 Vern. 742; Mclntyre v. Mcln-tyre, 120 Ga. 67, L02 Am. St. Rep. 71, 1 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 600; Thompson's Appeal, 114 Me 338, 96 Atl. 238; and article by Ar-mistead M. Dobie, Esq. 2 Virginia Law Rev. 327.

- Subsequent will. As stated above, a will can ordinarily, by force of the statute, be revoked by a subsequent writing only when such writing is executed as a will.74 Such revocation may result either from the language of the later instrument revoking the earlier will, or the later will may make a disposition of testator's property, or part thereof, inconsistent with the earlier disposition.75 If the second will neither in terms revokes the previous will nor is inconsistent therewith, then both are in force, the later being in effect a codicil to the former instrument,76 and, if the later will is only partially inconsistent with the earlier will, the latter remains in force in other respects.77 The subsequent will may contain no provision other than that revoking the earlier will,78 and it has the effect of revocation if it so provides, although the attempted disposition therein of the testator's property is for some reason invalid.79

71. Winsor v. Pratt, 2 Brod. & B. 650; Wolf v. Bollinger, 62 111. 368; Doane v. Hadlock, 42 Me. 72; Wilbourn v. Shell, 59 Miss. 205; Gardner v. Gardiner, 65 N. H. 230, 8 L. R. A. 383, 19 Atl. 651; In re Penniman's Will, 20 Minn. 245 (Gil. 220), 18 Am. Rep. 368.

72. Powell v. Powell, L. R. 1 Prob. & Div. 209.

73. Olmstead's Estate, 122 Cal. 224, 54 Pac. 745; Mclntyre v. Mclntyre, 120 Ga. 67, 102 Am. St. Rep. 71, 1 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 606; Townshend v. Howard, 86 Me. 285, 29 Atl. 1077; Semmes v. Semmes, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 388; Brown v. Thorndike, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 388; Banks v. Eanks, 65 Mo. 432.

74. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 2673. So it has been held that words written upon another part of the paper, to the effect that the will is revoked or. "cancelled," though signed by the testator, do not revoke the will, unless witnessed as required in the case of a will. Howard v. Hunter, 115 Ga. 357, 90 Am. St. Rep. 121, 41 S. E. 638; Matter of Akers, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 461, 77 N. Y. Supp. 643, 173 N. Y. 620, 66 N. E. 1103; Lewis v. Lewis, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 455; Ladd's Will, 60 Wis. 187; Matter of Gosling, 11 Prob. & Div. 79. But see Evans' Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 238; Billington v. Jones, 108 Tenn. 234, 56 L. R. A. 654, 91 Am. St. Rep. 751; Warner v. Warner, 37 Vt. 356.