[265] 4 Ves. 610.
[266] 3 Sw. & Tr. 478.
[267] 14 Mass. 208; Hine v. Hine, 31 Penn. 246.
[268] Lewis v. Lewis, 2 W. & S. 455.
[269] Price v. Maxwell, 28 Penn. 23.
[270] Howard v. Halliday, 7 Johns. R. 394. If two wills, in duplicate, were in possession of the testator, and he destroyed one, did this, in effect, work a revocation? This was in some doubt. The California Code has set at rest this question for that State, in Sec. 1295, where it is provided that a destruction of one of the copies shall amount to a revocation. See Onions v. Tyrer, 2 Vern. 742.
[271] Hobbs v. Knight, 1 Curteis, 289. And the cutting out of the principal part, as the signature of the testator, or of the witnesses, will be a revocation of the whole will: 1 Jarman, 161.
[272] Where the word “destroying” is used in the statute, as one mode of revocation, it is generally held to include all modes of defacing not specifically enumerated in the statute, and does not require an absolute and entire destruction. Johnson v. Brailsford, 2 Nott & McCord, 272.
[273] 2 Rev. Stat. 66. It is the same in California: Civil Code, 1292.
[274] Burtenshaw v. Gilbert, 1 Cowp. 49.