through a greater number of males than the blood of no II, and was therefore in their opinion the more worthy of the two. 4. Because the pofition itself destroys the otherwife entire and regular symmetry of our legal course of descents, as is mani feft by inspecting the table; wherein no 16, which is analogous in the maternal line to no 10 in the paternal, is preferred to no 18, which is analogous to no 11, upon the authority of the eighth rule laid down by Hale himself: and it destroys also that constant preference of the male ftocks in the law of inheritance, for which an additional reason is before * given, befides the mere dignity of blood. 5. Because it introduces all that uncertainty and contradiction, which is pointed out by an ingenious author; and establishes a collateral doctrine, (viz. the preference of no 11 to no 10) feemingly, though perhaps not strictly, incompatible with the principal point refolved in the cafe of Clere and Brooke, viz. the preference of no 11 to no 14. And, though that learned writer proposes to refcind the principal point then resolved, in order to clear this difficulty; it is apprehended, that the difficulty may be better cleared, by rejecting the collateral doctrine, which was never yet refolved at all. 6. Because the reason that is given for this doctrine, by lord Bacon, (viz. that in any degree, paramount the first, the law respecteth proximity, and not dignity of blood) is directly contrary to many inftances given by Plowden and Hale, and every other writer on the law of defcents. 7. Because this pofition feems to contradict the allowed doctrine of fir Edward Coke 2; who lays it down (under different names) that the blood of the Kempes (alias Sandies) fhall not inherit till the blood of the Stiles's (alias Fairfields) fail. Now the blood of the Stiles's does certainly not fail, till both no 9 and no 10 are extinct. Wherefore n° 11 (being the blood of the Kempes) ought not to inherit till then. 8. Because in the cafe, Mich. 12 Edw. IV. 14. (much relied on in that of Clere and Brooke) it is laid down as a rule, that " cefluy, que doit " inheriter al pere, doit inheriter al fits"." And fo fir Matthew Hale fays, "that though the law excludes the father a Fitzh. Abr. tit. difcent. 2.

x Pag. 235, 6, 7.

y Law of inheritances. 2d edit. pag. Abr. t. difcent. 3.

30. 38. 61, 62. 66. z Co. Litt. 12.

Bro.

b See pag. 223.

Hawk, abr. in loc.

Hift. C. L. 243.

" from

"from inheriting, yet it fubftitutes and directs the descent, "as it fhould have been, had the father inherited." Now it is fettled, by the refolution in Clere and Brooke, that no 10 fhould be inherited before no II to Geoffrey Stiles, the father, had he been the perfon laft feifed; and therefore no 10 ought alfo to be preferred in inheriting to John Stiles, the fon.

IN cafe John Stiles was not himself the purchafor, but the estate in fact came to him by descent from his father, mother, or any higher ancestor, there is this difference; that the blood of that line of ancestors, from which it did not defcend, can never inherit as was formerly fully explained. And the like rule, as is there exemplified, will hold upon descents from any other ancestors.

THE ftudent fhould alfo bear in mind, that, during this whole procefs, John Stiles is the person supposed to have been laft actually feifed of the eftate. For if ever it comes to vest in any other perfon, as heir to John Stiles, a new order of fucceffion must be obferved upon the death of fuch heir; fince he, by his own feifin, now becomes himself an ancestor or fipes, and must be put in the place of John Stiles. The figures therefore denote the order, in which the feveral classes would fucceed to John Stiles, and not to each other: and before we fearch for an heir in any of the higher figures, (as no 8.) we must be firft affured that all the lower claffes (from n I to no 7.) were extinct, at John Stiles's deceafe.

■ See page 236.

"from inheriting, yet it fubftitutes and directs the defcent, "as it fhould have been, had the father inherited." Now it is fettled, by the refolution in Clere and Brooke, that no 10 fhould be inherited before no 11 to Geoffrey Stiles, the father, had he been the person last seised; and therefore no 10 ought alfo to be preferred in inheriting to John Stiles, the fon.

IN cafe John Stiles was not himself the purchafor, but the estate in fact came to him by defcent from his father, mother, or any higher ancestor, there is this difference; that the blood of that line of ancestors, from which it did not descend, can never inherit: as was formerly fully explained. And the like rule, as is there exemplified, will hold upon descents from any other ancestors.

THE ftudent fhould alfo bear in mind, that, during this whole procefs, John Stiles is the person supposed to have been laft actually feifed of the eftate. For if ever it comes to vest in any other perfon, as heir to John Stiles, a new order of fucceflion must be obferved upon the death of fuch heir; fince he, by his own feifin, now becomes himself an ancestor or flipes, and must be put in the place of John Stiles. The figures therefore denote the order, in which the feveral claffes would fucceed to John Stiles, and not to each other: and before we fearch for an heir in any of the higher figures, (as no 8.) we must be first affured that all the lower claffes (from n' I to no 7.) were extinct, at John Stiles's decease.

See page 236.