Page images
PDF

** tibus fratres veniunt. Vid. novel. 118. Proxi** mus autem sit, quem nemo antecedit.” ** Sed juris rationibus convenientius vide**tur, avum proavumve defuncti a fratribus ** ejus germanis in successione excludi; quia ** impeiator in dicta Novella 118. emphatice ** dixit, fratres et sorores cum proximis gru** du ascendentibus vocari; qualis mentio prox** imorum gradu inutilis plane ac superflua ** esset, si non per gradu proximos denotaren** tur illi, qui in primo lineæ ascendentis gra* du sunt; cum juris certi atque indubitati ** sit, nunquam in ascendente linea locum es** se juri repraesentationis, per quod remotior ** subintraret in locum proximioris defuncti; *' atque adeo suffecisset, si generaliter ex** préssum esset, fratres cum ascendentibus ** vocari. Ne dicam hoc ipso, quo in linea ** ascendente repraesentatio personae proxi** mioris admissa non est, fieri non posse, ut ** avus vel proavus defuncti, qui a patre vel ** matre defuncti certo certius excluditur, ** concurreret cum fratribus, qui cum patre ** matreque defuncti concurrunt. Quibus ac** cedit, quod sententia, de avo defuncti cum “get manis ejus fratribus concurrente, ad ab* surda ducit. Si enim vetum est, quod in “casu quo fratres et sorores cum proximis ** gradu ascendentibus ita concurrant, ut hae** reditas inter eos secundum personarum nu** merum dividenda sit, ac ascendentium et ** fratrum singuli æqualem habeant portio** nem secundum d. Nov. 118. eveniret neces** sario, ut remotiores ascendentes ob defec** tum proximiorum cum fratribus defuncti “ concurrentes plus fratribus nocituri essent, ** quam proximiores; dum, positis duobus * fratribus germanis defuncti, pater et mater ** concurrens duas tantum partes aequales au** ferendo efficerent, ut fratres singuli quar** tam hæreditatis fraternae partem capiant; “ quatuor autem avi aviæque existentes, vi** riles totidem partes occupando, non nisi * sextam singulis defuncti fratribus relicturi ** essent; sicuti tantum partem decimam duo ** fratres singuli essent habituri, si cum pro** avis atque proaviabus (quales octo esse ** possunt) deberent concurrere. Quam autem “a ratione id alienum sit, ut magis aliis ** concursu suo noceant remotiores, quam qui ** ejusdem lineæ proximiores sunt, nemo, ut ** opinor, non sponte satis agnoscit. Denique ** tantum concursum esse fratrum cum patre ** et matre, non vero cum aliis ascendentibus *' remotioribus, ubi pater materque deficit,

** aperte probant verba Novellæ 118. dum il** lic diserte cautum, si cum ascendcntibus “inveniuntur fratres aut sorores ex utrisque “parentibus conjuncti dcfuncto, eos cum “proximis gradu ascendentibus vocari, si aut “pater aut mnater fuerint: unde sequitur, eos “ non omni casu, nec promiscue cum dmni* bus ascendentibus, venire; sed si pater aut mater fuerint: ideoque mox igitur subjici** tur, in hoc casu patrem null;im usum, ex ** filiorum aut filiarum portione, posse sibi peni*tus vindicare, nulla avi facta mentione; cum ** tamen id avo aequa interdicendum fuisset, ** si et avus cum defuncti nepotis fratribus ** succedere potuisset, dum fratres succe** dentes aeque potuissent in avi quam in pa** tris potestate esse. Ut proinde nihil in con** trarium efficiat, quod, in ę proximus ** dicatur, quem nemo antecedit; cum id tum ** demum admitti debeat, quando nulla inde ** absurditas profluit; prout in hoc casu futu** rum, supra monstratum est.” Vid. 5oannis Voet. com. ad Pandectas, tom. 2. lib. 38. t. 17 § 13. But this question seems now to be settled in England in consequence of three determinations; the first of which was given in the Exchequer in the case of Poole v. Wilshaw on the 9th of July, 1708:—the second in the case of Norbury v. Vicars, before Mr. Fortescue, master of the rolls in November 1749:— and the third was delivered on the 14th January, 1754, in the case of Evelin v. Evelim, by the lord chancellor, who decreed in favour of the brother in exclusion of the grand-father, having founded his opinion partly in deference to the former determinations; partly _ in consideration of the present common law computation of degrees, relative to real estates; amd partly , upon the benefit, which must accrue to the public by preferring a younger man to an older, the brother of a deceased person to the grand-father, propter spem accrescendi. And it was also declared to be the opinion of the court, that, if the point in question had been res integra, and solely determinable by the Roman law, the decree would still have been the same; which declaration, from so high an authority, must have great weight in ascertaining of the Novel, and must incline civilians in general to think more favourably for the future of Voet's arguments, which were particularly quoted and much relied upom by the couvt.

. .

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

CAP. III.

De successione ex latere venientium.

Si igitur defunctus neque descendentes neque ascendentes reliquerit, primos ad hacreditatem vocamus fratres et sorores ex eodem paure et ex eadem matre natos, quos etiam cum patribus ad hacreditatem vocavimus. His autem non existentibus, in secundo ordine illos fratres ad hacreditatem vocamus, qui ex uno parente conjuncti sunt defuncto, sive per patrem solum, sive per matrem. Si autem defuncto fratres fuerint, et alterius fratris aut sororis praemortuorum filii, vocabuntur ad hacreditatem isti cum de patre et matre thiis, masculis et foeminis: et, quanticunque fuerint, tantam ex hacreditate percipient portionem, quantam eorum parens futurus esset accipere, si superstes esset. Unde consequens est, ut, si forte praemortuus frater, cujus filii vivunt, per utrumque parentem nunc defunctae personae jungebatur, superstites autem fratres per patrem solum forsan autmatrem ei jungebantur, praeponanturistius filii propriis thiis, licet in tertio sint gradu, (sive a patre sive a matre sint thii, et sive masculi sive foominae,) sicut eorum parens praeponeretur, si viveret. Et ex diverso, si quidem superstes frater ex utroque parente conjungitur defuncto, praemortuus autem per unum parentem jungebatur, hujus filios ab hacreditate excludimus, sicut ipse, si viveret, ab haereditate excludebatur. Hujusmodi vero privilegium in hoc ordine cognationis solis praebemus fratrum masculorum et foeminarum filiis aut filiabus, ut in suorum parentum

[ocr errors]

jura succedant; nulli enim alii omnino personae, ex hoc ordine venienti, hoc jus largimur. Sedet ipsis fratrum filiis tunc hoc beneficium conferimus, quandocum propriis judicantur thiis, masculis et foeminis, sive paternisive materni sint. Si autem cum fratribus defuncti etiam ascendentes, (sicut jam diximus) ad hazreditatem vocantur, nullo modo ad successionem ab intestato fratris aut sororis filios vocari permittimus; neque si ex utroque parente eorum pater aut mater defuncto jungebatur. Quandoquidem igitur fratris et sororis filiis tale privilegium dedimus, ut, in propriorum parentum succedentes locum, soli in tertio constituti gradu, cum iis, qui in secundo gradu sunt, ad haereditatem vocentur, illud palam est, quia thiis defuncti masculis et foeminis, sive a patre sive a matre, praeponuntur, si etiam illitertium cognationis similiter obtineant gradum. Si vero neque fratres, neque filios fratrum, sicut diximus, defunctus reliquerit, omnes deinceps a latere cognatos ad haereditatem vocamus, secundum uniuscujusque gradus praerogativam, ut viciniores gradu ipse reliquis praeponantur. Si autem plurimi ejusdem gradus inveniantur, secundum personarum numerum intereos hacreditas dividatur; quod in cafita nostrae leges appellant.

-- - - CHAPTER III.

Of the succession of collaterals.

If a man leaves neither descendants nor ascendants at the time of his death, we first call his brothers and sisters of the whole blood, whom we have also called to inherit with the fathers of deceased persons.

But, when there are no brothers of the whole blood with the deceased, we call

those, who are either by the same father only, or by the same mother. And, if the deceased leaves brothers and also nephews by a deceased brother or sister, these nephews shall be called to succeed with their uncles and aunts of the whole

[ocr errors]

blood to the deceased; but, however numerous these nephews are, they shall be entitled only to that share, which their parent would have taken, if alive. From whence it follows, that, if a man dies and is survived by the children of a deceased brother of the whole blood, and also by brothers of the half blood, then his nephews, [that is, the children of his brother, by the whole blood,) are to be preferred to their uncles and aunts; for, although such nephews are themselves in the third degree, yet they are preferred, as their parent would have been, if living. And, on the contrary, if a man dies, and is survived by a brother of the whole blood, and by children of a brother of the half blood deceased, these nephews are excluded, as their father would have been, if he had lived. But among collaterals we allow the privilege of representation to the sons and daughters of brothers and sisters, and no farther; and we grant it only to brothers and sisters’ children, when they concur with their uncles or aunts, paternal or maternal: for, when ascendants are called to inherit, we by no means permit the children of a deceased brother or sister to share in the succession; although the father or mother was of the whole blood with the deceased brother. But we have so far allowed the right of representation to brothers and sisters' children, that, being only in the third degree, they are called to inherit with those, who are in the second; and this is evident, because brothers and sisters’ children are preferred to the uncles and aunts of the deceased, paternal as well as maternal; although they are all in the third degree of cognation.

But, if a deceased person leaves neither brothers nor brothers’ children, we then call all the other collaterals according to the prerogative of their respective degrees, preferring the nearer to the more remote; and, if many are found in the same degree, the inheritance must be divided according to the number of persons; and our laws distinguish this manner of dividing an inheritance by calling it a division in cashita.

Tie-19; aeoc row xxroatav. Primos ad hacreditatem vocamus.] We must here observe in relation to the distinction between the whole blood and the half blood, that in EngHand the rules of law are different, according to the nature of the estate, which is to be taken; for, in case of lands the whole blood is always preferred, and the half blood is no blood inheritable by descent. 1 Co inst, 14 a. But, in respect to personal estate, the law has not always been fixed and certain; inasmuch as the statute of the 23d of Car II. [for the better settlement of the estates of intes. rates] takes no notice of this distinction between the whole blood and the half blood, but directs, that distribution shall be made among all those, who are in equal degree of kindred to the intestate But, it being certain, that brothers and sisters of the half blood are in the same degree with brothers and sisters of the whole blood, it hath been the general opinion, that brothers and sisters of the half blood were entitled, by virtue of

END OF The

the statute, to an equal share of the intestate’s estate, with the brothers and sisters of the whole blood, although there are several precedents of judgments given, since the statute, allowing the half blood to have but an half s are But the law in this respect has been fully settled ever since the decree of the house of lords in the case of Watts and others versus Crooke, upon an appeal from a decree in chancery, which had been given in favour of the half blood, and was affirmed by the house. Vid. Showers’s Cases in Par. 108. and Strahan's Domat. 683. 2 Mod. 294. Harris. očov, reoro. Nullo modo 1 “Sancimus, ut, “si quis moriens relinquat ascendentium ali“quem et fratres, qui possint cum parenti“bus vocari, et alterius præmortui fratris fi“lios, cum ascendentibus et fratribus vocen“tur etiam priemortui fratris filii, et tantam “accipiant portionem, quantum ecrum futu“rus erat Eater accipiere, si vixisset.” Vid. Nov. cxxvii, cap. 1. Harris.

institutes.

NoTES

REFERENCES.

PROEMIUM, OR PREFACE.

DE CONFIRMATIONE INSTITUTIONUM...Page 1. .

THIS amounts to an imperial constitution, giving a Sanction, to this compilation by Tribonian and his associates. In nomine Domini nostri jesu Christi. This is elsewhere used, as

in the second and third confirmations of the digests, in the confirmation of the code, and of several of the novels. In nomine Domini mastri jesu Christi, ad omnia consilia omneshue actus semper progredimur. Cod. 1, 27. 2. pr. Hence the usual solemn form of beginning last wills and testaments, IN THE NAME OF GoD, AMEN. That the ancient Romans, seldom entered on a business of importance same consilio deorum et ope invocata, I am aware ; but I suspect this practice, was rather of Christian origin: 3 Coloss. 17. “Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God, and the father by him.” See Dr. Taylor's observations on the proemium of the Institutes, Elem. Civ. Law. qto. 28. This form of testamentary introduction, cannot be necessary, unless under some precise and positive institution; of which I know none in the English or American law. I refer to Taylor, (loc. cit.) for a full dissertation on the titles assumed by the emperor, of which the following is a concise account. "

Emperor. Imperator. Originally conferred on victorious generals, but first assumed as an imperial title by Augustus Cæsar,

« PreviousContinue »