INHERITANCE. In English law the heir is simply the person on whom the real property of the deceased devolved by operation of law if he died intestate (see HEIRS). Until 1926 the devolution of an inheritance in England was regulated by the rules of descent, as altered by the Inheritance Act amended by the Law of Property Amendment Act 1859.
I. The first rule was that inheritance shall descend to the issue of the last "purchaser." A purchaser in law means one who acquires an estate otherwise than by descent, e.g., by will, by gratuitous gift or by purchase in the ordinary meaning of the word. Under the earlier law descent was traced from the last person who had "seisin" or feudal possession. 2. The male was admitted before the female. 3. Among males of equal degree in consanguinity to the purchaser, the elder excluded the younger; but females of the same degree took together as "coparceners." 4. Lineal descendants took the place of their ancestor. 5. If there were no lineal descendants of the purchaser, the next to inherit was his nearest lineal ancestor. 6. The sixth rule was thus ex pressed by Joshua Williams in his treatise on The Law of Real Property:— The father and all the male paternal ancestors of the purchaser and their descendants shall be admitted before any of the female paternal ancestors or their heirs; all the female paternal ancestors and their heirs before the mother or any of the maternal ancestors or her or their descendants ; and the mother and all the male maternal ances tors and her and their descendants before any of the female maternal ancestors or their heirs.
7. Kinsmen of the half-blood might be heirs ; such kinsmen shall inherit next after a kinsman in the same degree of the whole blood, and after the issue of such kinsman where the common ancestor is a male and next after the common ancestor where such ancestor is a female. 8. In the admission of female paternal an cestors, the mother of the more remote male paternal ancestor and her heirs were preferred to the mother of the less remote male paternal ancestor and her heirs; and, in the case of female ma ternal ancestors, the mother of the more remote male maternal an cestor was preferred to the mother of a less remote male maternal ancestor. Failing heirs of all kinds, the lands of an intestate pur chaser, not alienated by him, would revert by "escheat" (q.v.) to the next immediate lord of the fee, who would generally be the crown.
By s. 45 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, all existing modes, rules and canons of descent were abolished and new rules were substituted. (See INTESTACY.) Scotland.—In Scotland the rules of descent differ from the above in several particulars. Descent is traced, as in England before the Inheritance Act, to the person last seized. The first to succeed are the lineal descendants of the deceased, and the rules of primogeniture, preference of males to females, equal succession of females (heirs-portioners), and representation of ancestors are generally the same as in English law. Next to the lineal descend ants, and failing them, come the brothers and sisters, and their issue as collaterals. Failing collaterals, the inheritance ascends to the father and his relations, to the entire exclusion of the mother and her relations. Even when the estate has descended from mother to son, it can never revert to the maternal line. As to succession of brothers, a distinction must be taken between an estate of heritage and an estate of conquest. Conquest is where the deceased has acquired the land otherwise than as heir, and corresponds to the English term purchase in the technical sense explained. Heritage is land acquired by deceased as heir. The distinction is important only in the case when the heir of the deceased is to be sought among his brothers; when the descent is lineal, conquest and heritage go to the same person. And when the brothers are younger than the deceased, both conquest and heritage go to the brother (or his issue) next in order of age. But when the deceased leaves an elder and a younger brother (or their issues), the elder brother takes the conquest, the younger takes the heritage. Again, when there are several elder brothers, the one next in age to the deceased takes the conquest before the more remote, and when there are several younger brothers, the one next to the deceased takes the heritage before the more remote. When heritage of the deceased goes to an elder brother (as might happen in certain eventualities), the younger of the elder brothers is preferred.
The position of the father, after the brothers and sisters of the deceased, will be noticed as an important point of difference from the English axioms; so also is the total exclusion of the mother and the maternal line. As between brothers and sisters the half blood only succeeds after the full blood. Half-blood is either consanguinean, as between children by the same father, or uterine, as between children having the same mother. The half-blood uter ine is excluded altogether. Half-blood consanguinean succeeds thus : if the issue is by a former marriage, the youngest brother (being nearest to the deceased of the consanguinean) succeeds first ; if by a later marriage than that from which the deceased has sprung, the eldest succeeds first.
In many of the British dominions and colonies the English law of inheritance has been greatly modified by legislation.
(W. A. B.) United States.—American law borrowed its rules of descent of real estate considerably more from the civil law than the com mon law. "The 118 novel of Justinian has a striking resemblance to American law in giving the succession of estates to all legiti mate children without distinction and disregarding all consider ations of primogeniture. There is one particular in which the American law differs from that of Justinian, that while generally in the United States lineal descendants if they stand in an equal degree from the common ancestor share equally per capita; under the Roman law regard was had to the right of representation, each lineal branch of descendants taking only the portion which their parent would have taken had he been living, and the division being per stirpes and not per capita. But in some of the states the rule of the Roman law in this respect has been adopted and retained." When such lineal descendants stand in unequal degrees of con sanguinity the inheritance is per stirpes and not per capita (In re Prote, 1907 ; 104 N.Y. Supplement 581) . This is the rule in practically all the States.
The entire subject of descent has, substantially, become stat utory. The principal changes have been in uniformity of rules as between real and personal property and a more substantial provision for the wife. An important feature at common law— "the blood of the ancestor"—is no longer of importance.
But as in no two States are the rules of descent identical, the only safe guides are the statutes and decisions of the particular State in which the property to be inherited is situated. In 41 States the rules for the descent of real and personal property are the same, in seven States they still differ. The law of primo geniture as understood in England is abolished throughout the United States, and male and female relatives inherit equally.
The distinction between relatives of the whole and half blood is not ordinarily in force. In a few States it is abolished by statute. In three States those of full blood are preferred.
The English rule that natural children not subsequently legiti mated have no inheritable blood has been greatly modified. In several States inheritable blood exists between a natural child and its mother. In Pennsylvania, this is extended to its maternal grandparents. In Arizona there is no distinction. In some States, a subsequent marriage removes the bar as does recognition by the father in some States. Common law dowers have been largely regulated by statutes which give certain rights to the surviving wife in lieu thereof—usually more favourable to her than her common law dower. In several States she takes a third interest in fee in land alienated by her husband in his lifetime without joining her in the deed—usually one-third; in Kansas one-half interest in fee. Curtesy has likewise been very generally abolished and cer tain statutory rights given to a surviving husband instead. In the States which came in through the Spanish or French titles, dower ' and curtesy had no place.
In default of issue and subject to the share of the spouse, the parents usually take, and failing parents, collaterals take. A usual form of statute gives the wife one-half where there is but one child; if there be more than one child, the wife takes a child's share.
Degrees of kindred in the United States generally are com puted according to the civil law, i.e., by adding together the num ber of degrees between each of the two persons whose relationship is to be ascertained and the common ancestor. Thus, rela tionship between two brothers is in the second degree ; between uncle and nephew in the third degree ; between cousins, in the fourth, etc. In a few States such degrees are computed according to the common law, i.e., by counting from the common ancestor to the more remote descendant of the two from him—thus, brothers would be related in the first degree, uncle and nephew in the second, etc. In most States representation amongst col laterals is restricted—in some to the descendants of brothers and sisters, in others to their children only.
In eight States (California, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Washington) the law of "community property" of husband and wife prevails. This is derived from the French and Spanish law existing in the territories out of which those States were formed as the result of the Spanish and French occupation. The foundation idea is an equal division at the death of either party of all property acquired during their marriage except by gift, devise or descent. In general the husband has the control and management thereof during the marriage, and the survivor has the administration of the moiety of the one de ceased. (F. R.)