Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ral view of descent, we may law down with respect to it the following rules or canons (i):—

I. In every case the descent shall be traced from the purchaser.

This primary law of descent is laid down in the form here propounded by the act of parliament to which we have just referred (k); and it gives its own definition of the sense in which the expression of the purchaser is here to be understood-a definition not entirely harmonizing with that of the word purchase, as given in the last chapter; for (in substance) the statute defines the purchaser to mean the person who last acquired the land otherwise than by descent (1).

(i) The Inheritance Act does not affect the mode of tracing descent in a manor subject to a particular custom of descent (Muggleton v. Barnett, 2 H. & N. 653). The statute also applies to no descent which took place on a death prior to the 1st of Jan. 1834. For such descents, we must refer to the system of Blackstone, according to which the annexed Table of Descent (No. I.) is arranged, and of which the Rules (or Canons) are as follows:

Rule 1. That inheritances shall lineally descend to the issue of the person who last died actually seised, in infinitum, but shall never lineally ascend.

Rule 2. That the male issue shall be admitted before the female.

Rule 3. That when there are two or more males in equal degree, the eldest only shall inherit, but the females all together.

Rule 4. That the lineal descendants in infinitum of any person deceased shall represent their ancestor; that is, shall stand in the same place as the person himself would have

done had he been living.

Rule 5. That, on failure of lineal descendants or issue of the person last seised, the inheritance shall descend to his collateral relations, being of the blood of the first purchaser, subject to the three preceding rules.

Rule 6. That the collateral heir of the person last seised must be his next collateral kinsman of the whole blood.

Rule 7. That in collateral inheritance the male stocks shall be preferred to the female (that is, kindred derived from the blood of the male ancestors, however remote, shall be admitted before those from the blood of the female, however near), unless where the lands have in fact descended from a female.

(k) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, s. 2.

(1) Sect. 1. The words of the Act are, that the purchaser "shall mean "the person who last acquired the "land otherwise than by descent;

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of England Vol 1 Page 394

Maternal Line

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed]

The effect then of the Rule above laid down is as follows: that if the deceased owner of an estate in fee simple came to it by purchase, that is, in any other manner than by descent, the party claiming it as heir must make him the propositus, or person from whom consanguinity is to be traced; while on the other hand, if he came to it by descent from some purchasing ancestor, that ancestor must be made the propositus. Thus if John Stiles, in the annexed Table of Descent (No. II.), dies the proprietor of an estate, which he is known to have acquired by purchase, any person claiming it as heir must prove that he is heir to John Stiles, that is, stands in such relation of consanguinity to John Stiles as the laws of descent hereafter laid down make sufficient in the particular case; but if John dies owner of an estate which descended to him from Geoffrey his father, by whom it appears to have been originally purchased, the claimant must prove that he is heir to Geoffrey the father, who becomes in that case the propositus instead of John, the last owner; the consequence of which is, that no relation to John ex parte maternâ can, as such, ever inherit. Again, if the estate descended to John from Lucy Baker, his mother, who is known to have been the purchaser, the descent must in that case be traced from her, and John's relations ex parte paternâ are, on the same principle, necessarily excluded. It often happens, however, especially in long descents, that it is uncertain by whom an estate was originally purchased; and against this difficulty of proof the act of parliament provides by the following rule of evidence, which is to be understood as a necessary supplement to the rule of descent under consideration; viz. that the last owner, or (as the Act describes him) “the person last entitled" (m) to the land (n), shall be considered to

"of or descendible in the same "manner as other land acquired by "descent."

(m) In this statute, the expression "last entitled," shall extend "to the last person who had a right

"thereto, whether he did or did "not obtain the possession, or the "receipt of the rents and profits "thereof."-3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, s 1.

(n) In this statute the word "land"

have been the purchaser, unless it shall be proved that he inherited it; and that the same rule shall be constantly applied at every step upward of the pedigree (o). Therefore if John Stiles is the person last entitled to an estate, and dies, and it does not appear whether he purchased it or not, the claimant must prove descent from him. So if it appears that he inherited it from his father Geoffrey, but it is unknown whether Geoffrey purchased it or not, the claimant must make himself heir to Geoffrey; and on the same principle, if it can be shown that Geoffrey took by descent from George, then George must be made the propositus.

any

This 1st canon, though newly introduced by the Inheritance Act, is mainly founded on the antient maxim, that none shall claim as heir who is not of the blood of the purchaser (p); a maxim [peculiar to our own laws, and those of a similar original; for it was entirely unknown among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, none of whose laws looked further than the last owner of the estate, but assigned him an heir without considering by what title the estate was gained, or from what ancestor derived. But the antient law of Normandy agreed with ours in this respect (q); nor indeed is that agreement to be wondered at, since the law of descent in both is of feudal origin, and this rule cannot otherwise be accounted for than by recurring to feudal principles.

When feuds first began to be hereditary,] that is, subject to succession according to consanguinity, [it was made a necessary qualification of the heir who would succeed to a feud, that he should be lineally descended from the first feudatory or purchaser (r). In consequence whereof, if a

extends to all hereditaments, whether corporeal or incorporeal, of whatever tenure, and whether the estate is in possession, reversion or remainder, &c. (See 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, s. 1, where the definition is still more copious.)

(0) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, s. 2.

(p) "And note, it is an old and "true maxim in law, that none shall "inherit any lands as heir, but only "the blood of the first purchaser."Co. Litt. 12 a; and see 2 Bl. Com. 220.

(q) Grand Coustum. c. 25.
(r) 1 Feud: 20.

« AnteriorContinuar »