Of a daughter with a son's widow, the son dying subsequently to his father.

four shares, of which one will go to the widow and the remaining three to the sister of the deceased.

Q. 2. Supposing the first person to have died, without having made any division of his estate, leaving a son and daughter, and the son to die subsequently, leaving a wife, the property still remaining undivided; how much of the property will devolve on the son's wife, and how much on the daughter?

R. 2. In the first instance, the property of the first deceased will be made into three shares, of which two belonged to the son and one to the daughter. Afterwards of the four shares belonging to the second deceased (the two shares of the son having been raised to four) three will go to his sister and one to his wife. Therefore, the whole estate of the first deceased should be made into six parts, of which one should be awarded to the widow of his son, and five to his daughter.

Q. 3. Supposing the wife of the second deceased to have had a daughter by her husband, which daughter died at the age of five years. Under these circumstances, to what proportion of the property will such daughter be entitled? and after her death, on whom will her share devolve?

Of a daughter R. 3. Under the circumstances stated, the property with a son's of the first deceased will be made into three shares, of widow, the

son dying sub- which the son will take two and the daughter one; sequently to

leaving a daughter, who is also

and the father, but on the death of the son his two shares will be raised to eight, of which one will go to his widow, four to his daughter, and three to his sister; and on the death of the daughter, the four shares appertaining to her will devolve on her mother. The whole estate of the first deceased, therefore, should be made into twelve parts,

dead.

of which five should be awarded to the widow of his son and seven to his daughter.*

CASE LXXXIII.

Q. A person dies, leaving his wife A, three sons B, C and D, and three daughters E, F, (by his wife A) and G by another wife. After his death, and before the property is distributed, his widow A, two of his sons B and C, and one of his daughters G, successively die. The

• These questions afford very easy examples of cases of vested inheritance.

At the first distribution, the estate should have been divided into three parts, to give the son twice as much as the daughter. At the second distribution the estate of the son should have been made into four parts, the share of the wife being one fourth. But, being a case of vested inheritance, the proportion must be ascertained between the number to which the deceased son was entitled and the number into which it is necessary to divide the estate. Thus: 2×2=4, which agreeing in 2, the rule is (see Prin: Vest: Inh: 99) that the number of the shares of the original division (aggregate and individual) be multiplied by half the number of the portions of the second class of heirs, and these last by half the number of shares to which the deceased was entitled, (which being in this case only one, multiplication is needless.) Thus: 3×2=6, of which the widow will take one and the daughter 5, according to this table:

So also, in the third question, at the second distribution, the estate of the son should have been made into eight, the share of the widow being one-eighth and of the daughter one-half, but 2 and 8 also agree in 2, and agreeably to the Principle quoted in illustration of the answer to the former question, 3 must be multiplied by 4. Thus: 3 × 4=12, of which the son's sister takes 7, 4 in right of her father and 3 in right of her brother, the son's daughter 4 as her legal share of half, and the son's widow 1 as her legal share of one-eighth. On the third distribution the whole estate of the daughter goes to the mother, and the sister's share is not increased: according to this table.

Case of a widow, three

sons, three

surviving heirs therefore are D, E and F. In what manner, and in what proportions, will the property of the original proprietor be distributed among them?

R. It will be made into one thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight shares, of which D will get eight hundaughters and dred and sixty-four shares, and E and F four hundred the daughter of another and thirty-two each. The following table will exhibit the manner in which the surviving heirs succeed to the interests vested in them by the death of their relations, the daughter who died subsequently to the original proprietor, but of the other previously to the distribution being carried into effect.

wife; and the widow, two

sons, one

daughter, and

wife dying

Q. A person dies, leaving two sons, who are uterine brothers, and who divide the paternal estate equally, each retaining possession of his own share. Some

This case affords a good illustration to the rule respecting the succession to vested interests. With a view to distribute the property of the propositus, in the first instance, recourse must be had to the Third Prin: of Dist: (77). For the widow having a right to one-eighth, it is evident that the property cannot be made into less than eight shares; but besides her there are nine claimants, one son being counted as two daughters, and after her eighth is withdrawn, it is obvious that the remaining seven shares cannot be distributed among the nine claimants, without a fraction. It consequently becomes necessary to find the proportion between the sharers and the shares, which appears to be, that they are divisible by an unit only, or, that they are, what is termed, Mootubayun or prime. Thus: 7-9-2 and 23-7-1, in which case the rule is, that the number of sharers must be multiplied into the total number of shares. Thus: 9X8=72, the product required.

Among the second class of sharers, the first rule of distribution applies. The step-daughter gets nothing, and by making the property into 8, (the number of sharers, a male being counted for two females,) it may be distributed without a fraction. But as the property of the widow was not distributed at the time of her death, it is necessary to find out the extent of the vested interest to which each heir is entitled: it is requisite that the proportion be ascertained between the aggregate of their shares and the amount to which the widow was entitled at the preceding distribution, which is found to be 9. Thus: 8-9-1. These numbers therefore are divisible by an unit only or are Mootubayun, in which case the rule is (See Prin: Vest: Inh: 95) that the aggregate and the individual shares of the first class should be multiplied by the aggregate of the shares of the second class. Thus: 72X8-576, and 14X8=112, and 7×8=56, after which the individual shares of the second class must be multiplied by the amount to which the widow was entitled at the preceding distribution. Thus: 2X9-18 and 1X9=9. Among the third class of sharers also, the first rule of distribution applies for the same reasons; and in order to ascertain the extent of the vested interest of each heir, the same process must be had recourse to.

years subsequent to the division of the inheritance the younger son dies, leaving a widow and four daughters. The widow, on the death of her husband, takes possession of his property, which she retains for several years, and no distribution of her husband's property took place during her life-time. Of the deceased's daughters three are married and one continues unmarried. Afterwards the widow dies; but four or five years prior to her death her husband's brother and his son and grandson took possession of the property left by her husband and retained the exclusive enjoyment of it. It does not appear whether the possession was obtained forcibly or by the consent of the widow. All the four daughters are still living, and one of them now lays claim to a fourth part of the property left by her deceased father, bringing her action against her elder sister, who is the wife of her uncle's son, against her uncle's son, and

Thus B the deceased had 112 shares at the first distribution, and 18 at the second, total, 130; but the aggregate of the sharers of the present class is 6. The proportion between these two numbers is, that they agree in 2, or are, as it is termed, Mootuwafiq or composit. Thus: 6X 21=130-4 and 4-6-2, in which case the rule is (See Prin: Vest: Inh: 99) that the aggregate and individual shares of the first class and the individual shares of the second class (as produced by the preceding results,) should be multiplied by half the sum of the shares of the third class. Thus: 576X3=1728, and 112 X 3=336, and 56 × 3=168, and 18X3=54, and 9×3=27, after which the individual shares of the third class must be multiplied by half the amount to which B was entitled at the preceding distribution. Thus: the half of 130 is 65, and 65X2=130, and 65X1=65.

Among the fourth class also the same rules apply. Thus C the deceased had 336 at the first distribution, 54 at the second, and 130 at the third. Total 520 but 4 × 130=520, and the proportion is, that they agree in 4, or are, as it is termed, Mootudakhil or concordant, in which case the rule is (See Prin: Vest: Inh: 99) that the aggregate and individual shares of the first class, and the individual shares of the second and the third classes, should be multiplied by a fourth of the sum of the shares of the fourth class. But one being the fourth of 4, multiplication is needless-after which the individual shares of the fourth class must be multiplied by a fourth of the amount to which C was entitled at the preceding distribution. Thus the fourth of 520 is 130, and 130 X2=260, and 130 X 1=130.

G dying, of her 168 shares her half-brother will take 84, and her halfsisters will take 42 each. Thus the survivor D will receive 84 +260 +130+54 +336=864, and E will receive 421306527↓ 168=432, and F will receive 42 +1306527168=432.