out by an ingenious author[1]; and eſtabliſhes a collateral doctrine, incompatible with the principal point reſolved in the caſe of Clere and Brooke, viz. the preference of № 11 to № 14. And, though that learned writer propoſes to reſcind 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 reſolved at all. 6. Becauſe by the reaſon that is given for this doctrine, in Plowden, Bacon, and Hale, (viz. that in any degree, paramount the firſt, the law reſpecteth proximity, and not dignity of blood) № 18 ought alſo to be preferred to № 16; which is directly contrary to the eighth rule laid down by Hale himſelf[2]. 7. Becauſe this poſition ſeems to contradict the allowed doctrine of ſir Edward Coke[3]; who lays it down (under different names) that the blood of the Kempes (alias Sandies) ſhall 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 № 9 and № 10 are extinct. Wherefore № 11 (being the blood of the Kempes) ought not to inherit till then. 8. Becauſe in the caſe, Mich. 12 Edw. IV. 14[4]. (much relied on in that of Clere and Brooke) it is laid down as a rule, that "ceſtuy, que doit inheriter al pere, doit inheriter al fits." And ſo ſir Matthew Hale[5] ſays, "that though the law excludes the father from inheriting, yet it ſubſtitutes and directs the deſcent, as it ſhould have been, had the father inherited." Now it is ſettled, by the reſolution in Clere and Brooke, that № 10 ſhould have inherited to Geoffrey Stiles, the father, before № 11; and therefore № 10 ought alſo to be preferred in inheriting to John Stiles, the ſon.
In caſe John Stiles was not himſelf the purchaſor, 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 deſcend, can never
