Page images
PDF
EPUB

Example of

bution must be multiplied by the measure of the number of shares to which the deceased was entitled at the preceding distribution.

100. For instance, a man dies leaving A, his wife, B and C, his two sons, and D and E, his two daughters; of whom A and D died before the distribution, the former leaving a mother, and the latter a husband.

[ocr errors]

At the first distribution the estate should be made into forty-eight shares, of which the widow will get six, the sons fourteen each, and the daughters seven each. On the death of the widow, leaving a mother and the above four children, her estate should, in the first instance, be made into thirty-six parts, of which the mother is entitled to six, the sons to ten each, and the daughters to five each; but being a case of vested inheritance, it becomes requisite to ascertain the proportion between the number of shares to which she was entitled at the preceding distribution, and the number into which it is necessary to make the estate. Thus 6×6=36, which proving concordant, or agreeing in six, the rule is, that the aggregate and individual shares of the preceding distribution be multiplied by six, or the measure of the number of shares into which it is necessary to make the estate at the second distribution. Thus 48x6-288, and 14x6=84, and 7×6=42; but the measure of the number to which the deceased was entitled at the preceding distribution being only one, it is needless to multiply by it the shares at the second distribution. On the death of one of the daughters, leaving her two brothers, her sister, and a husband, her estate should, in the first instance, be made into ten parts, of which her husband is entitled to five, her brothers to two each, and her sister to one; but being a case of vested inheritance, it becomes requisite to ascertain the proportion between the number of shares to

which she was entitled at the preceding distribution, and the number into which it is necessary to make her estate. But she derived forty-seven shares from the preceding distributions, (five at the second and forty-two at the first). Thus 10x4-47-7, and 7-10-3, and 3-7-4, and 3-4-1, which proving prime or agreeing in a unit only, the rule is, that the aggregate and individual shares of the preceding distributions be multiplied by ten, or the whole number of shares into which it is necessary to make the estate at the third distribution. Thus 288x10-2880, and 84 x 10-840, and 42 ×10=420, and 6×10=60, and 10×10=100, and 5x 10-50. Then the shares at the third distribution should be multiplied by the number of shares to which the deceased sister was entitled at the preceding distributions. Thus 5x 47-235, and 2x47-94, and 1x47-47. Therefore of the 2880 shares, the son B will get 840+ 100+94=1034; the son C 840+100+94-1034; the daughter E 420+50+47-517; the mother of A 60, and the husband of D 235.

SECTION X.

Of missing persons and posthumous children.

persons.

101. The property of a missing person is kept in a- Of missing beyance for ninety years. His estate in this interval cannot derive any accession from the intermediate death of others, nor can any person who dies during this interval inherit from him.

102. If a missing person be a coheir with others, the Of a missing estate will be distributed as far as the others are con- coheir with person being a cerned, provided they would take at all events, whether others. the missing person were living or dead. Thus in the case of a person dying, leaving two daughters, a miss

ing son, and a son and daughter of such missing son.

[ocr errors]

Of a child in the womb, there being

sons.

Of a child in the womb, there being heirs who would succeed only on its default.

Of the same there being heirs who

would take at all events.

Rule of succession where two or more individuals

meet with a

In this case the daughters will take half the estate im mediately, as that must be their share at all events; but the grandchildren will not take any thing, as they are precluded on the supposition of their father's being alive.

103. Where a person dies leaving his wife pregnant, and he has sons, the share of one son must be reserved in case a posthumous son should be born.

104. Where a person dies leaving his wife pregnant, and he has no sons, but there are other relatives who would succeed in the event only of his having no child, (as would be the case, for instance, with a brother or sister), no immediate distribution of the property takes place.

105. But if those other relatives would succeed at all events to some portion, (larger without than with a child, as would be the case, for instance, with a mother) the property will be distributed, and the mother will obtain a sixth, the share to which she is necessarily entitled, and afterwards, if the child be not born alive, her portion will be augmented to one-third.

SECTION XI.

De Commorientibus.

106. Where two or more persons meet with a sudden death about the same time, and it is not known which died first, it will be presumed according to one opinion, sudden death that the youngest survived longest; but according to the more accurate and prevailing doctrine, it will be presumed that the death of the whole party was simultaneous, and the property left will be distributed among the surviving heirs, as if the intermediate heirs who died

at the same

time.

at the same time with the original proprietor had never existed.*

SECTION XII.

Of the distribution of assets.

assets.

107. What has preceded relates to the ascertainment of claims and of the shares to which the several heirs are entitled; but when the proper number of shares into which an estate should be made, may have been ascertained, it seldom happens that the assets of the estate exactly tally with such number; in other words, if it be found that the estate should be made into ten, or into fifty shares, it would seldom happen that the assets exactly amount in value to ten or fifty goldmohurs or rupees. To ascertain the proper shares of the different sets of heirs and creditors in such cases, the following rules are laid down:

them.

108. When the number of shares has been found into Rules fɔr ap. which the estate should be divided, and the number of shares to which each set of heirs is entitled, the former number must be compared, with the number of the assets. If these numbers appear to be prime to each other, the rule is, that the share of each set of heirs must be

*The following case may be cited as an example of this rule. A, B and C are grandfather, father and son. A and B perish at sea, without any particulars of their fate being known. In this case, if A have other sons, C will not inherit any of his property, because the law recognizes no right by representation, and sons excludes grandsons. Mr. Christian in a note to Blackstone's Commentaries (vol. 2, page 516) notices a curious question that was agitated some time ago, where it was contended that when a parent and child perish together, and the priority of their deaths is unknown, it was a rule of the civil law to presume that the child survives the parent. He proceeds however to say "But ishould be inclined to think that our courts would require more than presumptive evidence to support a claim of this nature. Some curious cases de commorientibus may be seen in causes celebres 3 tom 412 et seq. in one of which where a father and son were slain together in battle and on the same day the daughter became a professed nun, it was determined that her civil death was prior to the death of her father and brother, aud that the brother, having arrived at the age of puberty, should be presumed to have survived his father."

[ocr errors]

Where the

multiplied into the number of the assets, and the result divided by the number of shares into which it was found necessary to make the estate. For instance, a man numbers are dies, leaving a widow, two daughters, and a paternal prime. uncle, and property to the amount of 25 rupees. In this case, the estate should be originally divided into 24, of which the widow is entitled to 3, the daughters to 16, and the uncle to 5. Now to ascertain what shares of the estate left, these heirs are entitled to, the above rule must be observed. Thus 3×25=75, and 16× 25=400, and 5×25=125; but 75-24-3, and 400-24-16 16, and 125-24-5.

Ditto where they are com. posit.

And of individual heirs.

And of creditors.

109. If the numbers are composit, the rule is that the share of each set of heirs must be multiplied into the measure of the number of the assets and the result divided by the measure of the number of shares into which. it was found necessary to make the estate. For instance, a man dies, leaving the same number of heirs as above and property to the amount of 50 rupess. Now as 24 and 50 agree in 2 the measure of both numbers is half. Thus 3×25=75, and 16×25=400, and 5 ×25 =125, but 75-12-6, and 400-12-33, and 125 +12=10

110. If it be desired to ascertain the number of shares of the assets to which each individual heir is entitled, the same process must be resorted to, with this difference, that the number of the assets must be compared with the share originally allotted to each individual heir, and the multiplication and division proceeded on as above. For instance, in the above case the original share of each daughter was 8, and 8×25 = 200, and 20012-1677.

111. In a distribution of assets among creditors the rule is, that the aggregate sum of their debts must be

« PreviousContinue »