The fact that the testator did not die seized of any lands and premises, so far as the testimony before me shows, and that he alienated all of the lands and premises of which he was possessed to the defendant corporation after the making of his will, is conclusive evidence of a change of intention by him with regard to the testamentry disposition indicated by his will. Hattersley v. Bissett, 51 N.J. Eq. 597;Heinen v. Stubenrauch, 106 N.J. Eq. 300. The complainants contend that the testator did not sell the land in the ordinary sense of the word.

It has long been established in this State that a conveyance by a testator after the execution of his will, of the lands specifically devised therein operates as a revocation of the devise. Hattersley v. Bissett, 51 N.J. Eq. 597, 29 A. 187 ( E. A. 1893); Heinen v. Stubenrauch, 106 N.J. Eq. 300, 150 A. 687 ( Ch. 1930). In Hattersley v. Bissett, supra, Mr. Justice Depue speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals held:

The fact that the testator did not die seized of any lands and premises, so far as the testimony before me shows, and that he alienated all of the lands and premises of which he was possessed to the defendant corporation after the making of his will, is conclusive evidence of a change of intention by him with regard to the testamentary disposition indicated by his will. Hattersley v. Bissett, 51 N. J. Eq. 597, 29 A. 187, 40 Am. St. Rep. 532, Heineu v. Stubenrauch, 106 N. J. Eq. 300, 150 A. 687. The complainants contend that the testator did not sell the land in the ordinary sense of the word.