In Boudinot v. Bradford (1796), 2 U.S. 266, the Testator executed a will, but later made another will which he later destroyed. Dr. Rush probably Dr. Benjamin Rush testified to declarations of testator that he had made and destroyed his later will intending to die intestate. The court ruled that such testimony was admissible to establish "whether, by cancelling the second will, testator meant to revive the former instrument, or to die intestate." Chief Justice McKEAN, in his opinion, sustained this ruling and said page 268 "1st. Where a second Will is made, containing an express clause of revocation, the preceding Will, though not formally cancelled, is revoked. 2d. Where a second Will is destroyed, without more, the preceding will, not having been cancelled, is, generally speaking, ipso facto, revived. 3d. Where a second will is cancelled, under circumstances that manifest an intention either to revive, or not to revive, the preceding Will, those circumstances must be proved." The case of Boudinot v. Bradford, while containing the statement by Justice McKEAN that "Where a second Will is cancelled, under circumstances that manifest an intention either to revive, or not to revive, the preceding Will, those circumstances must be proved", also contains the following explanatory statement: "The mere act of making a second testament, is a revocation of a preceding testament, in relation to personal estate; the law throwing the personal estate on the executor as a trustee."