civil law would call it) had not been forisfamiliated, in his lifetime. King John, however, who kept his nephew Arthur from the throne, by diſputing this right of repreſentation, did all in his power to aboliſh it throughout the realm[1]: but in the time of his ſon, king Henry the third, we find the rule indiſputably ſettled in the manner we have here laid it down[2], and ſo it has continued ever ſince. And thus much for lineal deſcents.
V. A fifth rule is, that, on failure of lineal deſcendants, or iſſue, of the perſon laſt ſeiſed, the inheritance ſhall deſcend to the blood of the firſt purchaſor; ſubject to the three preceding rules.
Thus if Geoffrey Stiles purchaſes land, and it deſcends to John Stiles his ſon, and John dies ſeiſed thereof without iſſue; whoever ſucceeds to this inheritance muſt be of the blood of Geoffrey the firſt purchaſor of this family[3]. The firſt purchaſor, perquiſitor, is he who firſt acquired the eſtate to his family, whether the ſame was transferred to him by ſale, or by gift, or by any other method, except only that of deſcent.
This is a rule almoſt peculiar to our own laws, and thoſe of a ſimilar original. For it was entirely unknown among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans: none of whole laws looked any farther than the perſon himſelf who died ſeiſed of the eſtate; but aſſigned him an heir, without conſidering by what title he gained it, or from what anceſtor he derived it. But the law of Normandy[4] agrees with our law in this reſpect: nor indeed is that agreement to be wondered at, ſince the law of deſcents in both is of feodal original; and this rule or canon cannot otherwiſe be accounted for than by recurring to feodal principles.
When feuds firſt began to be hereditary, it was made a neceſſary qualification of the heir, who would ſucceed to a feud, that he ſhould be of the blood of, that is lineally deſcended from,
