When therefore a perſon dies ſo ſeiſed, the inheritance firſt goes to his iſſue: as if there be Geoffrey, John, and Matthew, grandfather, father, and ſon; and John purchaſes land and dies; his ſon Matthew ſhall ſucceed him as heir, and not the grandfather Geoffrey; to whom the land ſhall never aſcend, but ſhall rather eſcheat to the lord[1].
This rule, ſo far as it is affirmative and relates to lineal deſcents, is almoſt univerſally adopted by all nations; and it ſeems founded on a principle of natural reaſon, that (whenever a right of property tranſmiſſible to repreſentatives is admitted) the poſſeſſions of the parents ſhould go, upon their deceaſe, in the firſt place to their children, as thoſe to whom they have given being, and for whom they are therefore bound to provide. But the negative branch, or total excluſion of parents and all lineal anceſtors from ſucceeding to the inheritance of their offspring, is peculiar to our own laws, and ſuch as have been deduced from the ſame original. For, by the Jewiſh law, on failure of iſſue the father ſucceeded to the ſon, in excluſion of brethren, unleſs one of them married the widow and raiſed up feed to his brother[2]. And, by the laws of Rome, in the firſt place the children or lineal deſcendants were preferred; and, on failure of theſe, the father and mother or lineal aſcendants ſucceeded together with the brethren and ſiſters[3]; though by the law of the twelve tables the mother was originally, on account of her ſex, excluded[4]. Hence this rule of our laws has been cenſured and declaimed againſt, as abſurd and derogating from the maxims of equity and natural juſtice[5]. Yet that there is nothing unjuſt or abſurd in it, but that on the contrary it is founded upon very good reaſon, may appear from conſidering as well the nature of the rule itſelf, as the occaſion of introducing it into our laws.
