Chap. VIII. second codicils, and by a fourth codicil confirmed his will and former codicils, it was held that, as the fourth codicil confirmed the third, the first and second remained revoked. Carritt, 66 L. T. 379. B. Republication. In bonis Republication A distinction must be made between revival of a revoked of earlier testamentary testamentary instrument and republication of a valid testamentary instrument in such a way as to make it operate as at the date of republication. instrument. Incorporation of documents. It is clear that any reference which would be sufficient to revive a revoked instrument would be sufficient to republish an earlier unrevoked instrument. But a reference, sufficient to republish, would not necessarily revive a revoked instrument. Thus a codicil described as a codicil to a will republishes the will though is may not be sufficient to revive the will if revoked. Acherley v. Vernon, 3 B. P. C. 107; Barnes v. Crowe, 1 Ves. J. 486; Skinner v. Ogle, 5 N. of C. 74; 1 Rob. 363; Rowley v. Eyton, 2 Mer. 128 as corrected in 45 Ch. D. 637. Again, a testamentary instrument not described as a codicil but written at the foot of the will and containing a reference to the executors named in the will republishes the will. Serocold v. Heming, 2 Lee, Eccl. 490. But a will is not republished by a testamentary instrument not described as a codicil and not containing any reference to the will. In re Smith; Bilke v. Roper, 45 Ch. D. 632. A codicil referring to a will of a particular date does not republish an intermediate codicil. Burton v. Newbery, 1 Ch. D. 234. C. Incorporation of Documents. Any document in existence when the will is executed, and sufficiently described to enable it to be identified, may be incorporated with the will, and may be referred to for purposes of construction, whether incorporated in the probate or not. Hutchings v. Wood, 2 Moo. P. C. 355; Aaron v. Aaron, 3 De G. & S. 475; In bonis Sunderland, 1 P. & D. 198; In bonis Mercer, 2 P. & D. 91; In bonis Daniell, 8 P. D. 14; see In Chap. VIII. It has been said that the document must not only be in fact in existence when the will is executed, but also that it must be described as existing. Van Straubenzee v. Monk, 3 Sw. & T. 6; In bonis Watkins, 1 P. & D. 19; In bonis Dallow, ib. In bonis Sunderland, ib. 198; In re Kehoe, 13 L. R. 189; Ir. 13. It would seem, however, that if the document is proved to have been in existence at the date of the will, and is sufficiently identified by the description in the will, it is not necessary that it should be actually described as existing. See Singleton v. Tomlinson, 3 App. C. 404; In re Coyte; Coyte v. Coyte, 56 L. T. 510. It seems that a document sufficiently referred to in the will, though not in existence, may be incorporated if it exists at the date of a codicil to the will. In bonis Hunt, 2 Rob. 622; In bonis Stewart, 32 L. J. P. 94; 3 Sw. & T. 192; 4 Sw. & T. 211; In bonis Lady Truro, 1 P. & D. 201, not following In bonis Mathias, 32 L. J. P. 115; 3 Sw. & T. 100. But for this purpose it must be clear that the will, if read as of the date of the codicil, refers to a definite instrument, and that the instrument in question satisfies the description in the will. Durham v. Northen, (1895) P. 66. Thus, a codicil confirming a will, which directs certain property to be distributed as the testator may by any memorandum or deed direct, will not have the effect of incorporating memoranda executed between the dates of the will and codicil. In bonis Luncaster, 29 L. J. P. 155; see In bonis Warner, 10 W. R. 566; In bonis MacGregor, 60 L. T. 840. Whether document must be described as existing. Incorporation of documents in existence at date of codicil. A memorandum not described as a codicil written on the Memorandum on back of back or the fourth side of a paper containing an invalid will to will. which it does not refer does not incorporate the will. In bonis Drummond, 2 Sw. & T. 8; In bonis Tovey, 47 L. J. P. 63; see In bonis Willmott, 1 Sw. & T. 36. So a reference to executors "hereunder named," or the words Chap. VIII. Memorandum referring to contents of will. Reference to a will in a codicil incorporates an unattested will. Reference to unattested codicil. Reference to will where there are a valid will and codicils. Reference to will where "turn over," will not incorporate a clause not contained in the body of the will, though written before execution. In bonis Dallow, 1 P. & D. 189; In bonis Dearle, 39 L. T. N. S. 93; see In bonis Watkins, 1 P. & D. 19. On the other hand, the words "see over," with an asterisk, have been held sufficient to incorporate a sentence on the second side of a sheet of paper, by the side of which was also written "see over," with an asterisk. In bonis Birt, 2 P. & D. 214. See In bonis Greenwood, (1892) P. 7. The cases above cited on the subject of revival are also authorities on the subject of incorporation. Thus it would seem that a memorandum at the foot of a will, referring to something contained in the will, would incorporate it, though there is no express reference to the will as such. In bonis Terrible, 2 Sw. &. T. 8; In bonis Widdrington, 35 L. J. P. 66; see Gardiner v. Courthope, 12 P. D. 14. Upon similar principles it has been held that a testamentary disposition not described as a codicil, but written on the back of the will underneath two codicils described as codicils to the will, and altering a provision contained in the second codicil, had the effect of republishing the will and codicils. Guest v. Willasey, 2 Bing. 429; 3 Bing. 614. A reference by a duly attested codicil to a will incorporates the will, if the reference is such as to show that the testator intended to incorporate it, and if there is only one document in existence to which the term "will" can apply. Barnes v. Crowe, 1 Ves. Jun. 485; Doe d. Williams v. Evans, 1 Cr. & Mee. 42; Allen v. Maddock, 11 Moo. P. C. 427; In bonis Heathcote, 6 P. D. 31. Similarly, a reference in a codicil to a prior unattested codicil will incorporate it. Ingoldby v. Ingoldby, 4 N. of C. 493; Smith's Case, 2 Curt. 796. A reference, however, in a codicil to a will and prior codicils, where there are a will and codicils duly attested, will not incorporate a codicil not duly attested. Croker v. Marquis of Hertford, 3 Curt. 468; 4 Moo. P. C. 339. by And upon the same principle it would seem that a reference a codicil to a will, where there are a duly attested will and valid will and some unattested codicils, will not set up the unattested codicils. Chap. VIII. Utterton v. Robins, 1 Ad. & E. 423; 2 Nev. & M. 821; In there are a bonis Phelps, 6 N. of C. 695; Haynes v. Hill, 7 N. of C. unattested 256; see, however, Radburn v. Jervis, 3 B. 450; Guest v. Willasey, 2 Bing. 429; 3 Bing. 614. Possibly a reference to a will in general terms would incorporate all the valid instruments constituting the will, such as a will and several codicils. codicils. Will may include will and codicils. A codicil referring to a will by date incorporates the will of Reference to will by date. that date only, and not subsequent codicils. Burton v. Newbery, 1 Ch. D. 434; In bonis Reynolds, 3 P. & D. 35. The case is not altered by the fact that a valid codicil referring to the will by date is written on the same paper as a valid will and an intermediate unattested codicil. In bonis Hutton, 5 N. of C. 598; In bonis Phelps, 6 ib. 695; In bonis Willmott, 1 Sw. & T. 36; In re Spotten, 5 L. R. Ir. 403. Perhaps where a codicil is directed to be taken as part of the will, a subsequent codicil referring to the will by date and confirming it will have the effect of confirming the codicil as well. See Gordon v. Lord Reay, 5 Sim. 274, disapproved in Burton v. Newbery, supra. If the codicil recites the will by date and a codicil by date, and then confirms the "said will," the term "will" may include both will and codicil. Aaron v. Aaron, 3 De G. & S. 475. As to whether a codicil headed "This is a fourth codicil to my will" would incorporate a codicil headed "This is a third codicil to my will," see Stockil v. Punshon, 6 P. D. 9. Incorporation of an instrument into a will does not alter the effect of the instrument so far as it is already valid. So far as it is invalid as an independent instrument it takes effect as a testamentary disposition, subject to the ordinary rules as to lapse, ademption, &c., applicable to wills. Bizzey v. Flight, 3 Ch. D. 269. Effect of incorporation. existence cannot be A paper not in existence at the date of the execution of a Paper not in testamentary instrument cannot be incorporated in it or referred to for purposes of construction. Countess Ferraris v. Lord incorporated. Hertford, 3 Curt. 468; In bonis Watkins, 1 P. & D. 19; In bonis Dallow, ib. 189; Singleton v. Tomlinson, 3 App. C. 404; Chap. VIII. Power cannot be reserved by will of making Smith v. Conder, 9 Ch. D. 170; see In bonis Keller, 61 L. J. P. A testator cannot reserve by his will the power of making a testamentary disposition of his property by a subsequent a subsequent unattested paper. Habergham v. Vincent, 2 Ves. Jun. 204; 4 B. C. C. 353; Countess Ferraris v. Lord Hertford, 3 Curt. 468; 4 Moo. P. C. 339. unattested will. Persons to take under a particular description may depend on a subsequent act of the testator. Gift on trusts declared by parol to the trustee. Gift on trust; trust disclosed later. Thus, a gift to trustees to hold upon the uses appointed by a letter to be signed by the testator is invalid. Johnson v. Ball, 5 De G. & S. 85. But there is no objection to a gift to persons to be ascertained by a subsequent act on the part of the testator, provided the act is one which must be done as the natural result of the state of the property at the date of the will, and is in no way dependent upon a power reserved by the will. Stubbs v. Sargon, 2 Kee. 255; 3 M. & Cr. 507, where the gift was to the persons who should be in copartnership with the testatrix at the time of her decease, or to whom she should have disposed of her business. Where a gift is made by will to a person, and it appears on the face of the will that the gift is to be held on trust, but the trusts are not declared, oral evidence of the trusts is admissible if they have been communicated to the legatee prior to the execution of the will. Crook v. Brooking, 2 Vern. 50, 106; Pring v. Pring, 2 Vern. 98; Irvine v. Sullivan, 8 Eq. 673; Riordan v. Banon, I. R. 10 Eq. 469; In re Fleetwood; Sidgreaves v. Brewer, 49 L. J. Ch. 514; 15 Ch. D. 594; see Scott v. Brownrigg, 9 L. R. Ir. 246; In bonis Marchant, (1893) P. 254, a curious case. It has been said that where the will discloses that a bequest is made to a person as a trustee, but the nature of the trusts is not disclosed, evidence of the trusts is admissible, if they have been communicated to the legatee after the execution of the will. See Moss v. Cooper, 1 J. & H. 352; Riordan v. Banon, I. R. 10 Eq. 469; In re Fleetwood; Sidgreaves v. Brewer, 49 L. J. Ch. 514; 15 Ch. D. 594, where Johnson v. Ball, 5 D. G. & S. 85, which is an authority to the contrary, is discussed. But if the trusts are contained in a letter not incorporated t |