But  we  may  carry  the  argument  higher,  and  assert  that,  by  construction  of  law,
A  was  destroyed  when  B  was  completed ,  and  that  A  being  destroyed,  in  order  to
have  given  effect  to  it  again,  there  must  have  been  some  act  of  republication,  or  some
revival  by  necessary  implication,  or  something  in  short  to  shew  that  it  was  the  wish
and  intention  of  the  deceased  that  her  first  will  should  take  effect  after  she  had
cancelled  her  second.  This  is  the  clear  language  of  the  Roman  law.(a)  Posteriore
quoque  testamento  quod  jure  perfectum  sit  posterius  rumpitur,  nee  interest,  extiterit
aliquis  hseres,  an  non,  hoc  enim  [411]  solum  spectatur,  an  aliquo  casu  existere  potuerit.
Id^oque  si  quis  aut  noluerit  haeres  esse,  aut  vivo  testatore,  aut  post  mortem  ejus,
antequam  hsreditatem  adiret,  decesserit,  aut  conditione,  sub  qu&  hseres  institutus  est,
defectus  sit,  in  his  casibus  paterfamilias  intestatus  moritur.  Nam  et  prius  testa-
mentum  non  valet,  ruptum  k  posteriore ;  et  posterius  seque  nullas  vires  habet,  cum
ex  eo  nemo  hseres  extiterit.  In  the  same  book  of  the  Institutes,  under  the  head  of
Quibus  modis  convalescit  testamentum,  there  is  a  further  illustration  of  this  doctrine
(Instit.  lib.  tit.  17,  s.  7).  All  the  commentators  have  concurred  in  the  sense  and
stringency  of  these  passages ;  the  expressions  of  Vinnius  are  nee  prioris  testamenti
sublatio  pendet  ab  eventu  aliquo,  aut  casu  contingente  post  mortem  testatoris,  sed
illud  statim  vivo  adhuc  testatore  ipso  jure  per  posterius  rumpitur.
