issue; both these issues are lineally descended from John Stiles as their common ancestor; and they are collateral kinsmen to each other, because they are all descended from this common ancestor, and all have a portion of his blood in their veins, which denominates them consanguineos.

We must be careful to remember, that the very being of collateral consanguinity consists in this descent from one and the same common ancestor. Thus Titius and his brother are related; why? because both are derived from one father: Titius and his first cousin are related; why? because both descend from the same grandfather; and his second cousin's claim to consanguinity is this, that they both are derived from one and the same great-grandfather. In short, as many ancestors as a man has, so many common stocks he has, from which collateral kinsmen may be derived. And as we are taught by holy writ, that there is one couple of ancestors belonging to us all, from whom the whole race of mankind is descended, the obvious and undeniable consequence is, that all men are in some degree related to cach other. For indeed, if we only suppose each couple of our ancestors to have left, one with another, two children; and each of those children on an average to have left two more (and, without such a supposition, the human species must be daily diminishing); we shall find that all of us have now subsisting near two hundred and seventy millions of kindred in the fifteenth degree, at the same distance from the several common ancestors as ourselves are; besides those that are one or two descents nearer to or farther from the common stock, who may amount to as many more. And, if this calculation should appear incom

3 Third edition only reads "whence "; all other editions as in the text.

k This will swell more considerably than the former calculation for here, though the first term is but 1, the denominator is 4; that is there is one kinsman (a brother) in the first degree, who makes

patible with the number of inhabitants on the earth, it is because, by intermarriages among the several descendants from the same ancestor, a hundred or a thousand modes of consanguinity may be consolidated in one person, or he may be related to us a hundred or a thousand different ways.

[206] The method of computing these degrees in the canon law, which our law has adopted" [see note 42, together with the propositus, the two descendants from the first couple of ancestors; and in every other degree the number of kindred must be the quadruple of those in the degree which immediately precedes it. For, since each couple of ancestors has two descendants, who increase in a duplicate ratio, it will follow that the ratio, in which all the descendants encrease downwards, must be double to that in which the ancestors encrease upwards: but we have seen that the ancestors encrease in a duplicate ratio: therefore the descendants must encrease in a double duplicate, that is, in a quadruple ratio.

This calculation may also be formed by a more compendious process, viz. by squaring the couples, or half the number, of ancestors at any given degree; which will furnish us with the number of kindred we have in the same degree, at equal distance with ourselves from the common stock, besides those at unequal distances. Thus, in the tenth liueal degree, the number of ancestors is 1,024; it's half, or the couples, amount to 512; the number of kindred in the tenth collateral degree amounts therefore to 262,144 or the square of 512. And if we will be at the trouble to recollect the state of the several families within our own knowledge, and observe how far they agree with this account; that is, whether, on an average, every man has not one brother or sister, four first cousins, sixteen second cousins, and so on; we shall find that the present calculation is very far from being over-charged.

1 Decretal. 4. 14. 3 & 9.

m Co. Litt. 23.

page 371], is as follows. We begin at the common ancestor, and reckon downwards; and in whatsoever degree the two persons, or the most remote of them, is distant from the common ancestor, that is the degree [207] in which they are related to each other. Thus Titius and his brother are related in the first degree; for from the father to each of them is counted only one; Titius and his nephew are related in the second degree; for the nephew is two degrees removed from the coramon ancestor; viz. his own grandfather, the father of Titius.* Or (to give a more illustrious instance from our English annals), king Henry the seventh, who slew Richard the third in the battle of Bosworth, was related to that prince in the fifth degree. Let the propositus therefore in the table of consanguinity represent king Richard the third, and the class marked (e) king Henry the seventh. Now their common stock or ancestor was king Edward the third, the abavus in the same table: from him to Edmond duke of York, the proavus, is one degree; to Richard earl of Cambridge, the arus, two; to Richard duke of York, the pater, three; to king Richard the third, the propositus, four and from king Edward the third to John of Gant (a) is one degree; to John earl of Somerset (b) two; to John duke of Somerset (c) three; to Margaret countess of Richmond (d) four; to king Henry the seventh (e) five. Which last mentioned prince, being the farthest removed from the common stock, gives the denomination to the degree of kindred in the canon and municipal law. Though according to the computation of the civilians (who count upwards, from either of the persons related, to the common stock, and then downwards again to the other; reckoning a degree for each person both ascending and descending), these two princes were related in the ninth degree, for from **Quoted, 12 Ark. 657; 56 Am. Dec. 289." Cited, 20 N. Å. 482; 35 N. J. Eq. 66.

king Richard the third to Richard duke of York is one degree; to Richard carl of Cambridge, two; to Ed. mond duke of York, three; to king Edward the third, the common ancestor, four; to John of Gant, five; to John eari of Somerset, six; to John duke of Somerset, seven; to Margaret countess of Richmond, eight; to king Henry the seventh, nine."

[208] The nature and degrees of kindred being thus in some measure explained, I shall next proceed to lay down a series of rules, or canons of inheritance [e note 43, page 372], according to which estates are trans mitted from the ancestor to the heir; together with an explanatory comment, remarking their original and progress, the reasons upon which they are founded, and in some cases their agreement with the laws of other nations.

I. The first rule is, that inheritances shall lineally descend to the issue of the person last actually seised, in infinitum; but shall never lineally ascend.*

To explain the more clearly both this and the subsequent rules, it must still be observed, that by law no inheritance can vest, nor can any person be the actual complete heir of another, till the ancestor is previously dead. Nemo est hæres viventis. Before that time the person who is next in the line of succession is called an heir apparent, or heir presumptive. Heirs apparent are such, whose right of inheritance is indefeasible, provided they outlive the ancestor; as the eldest son or his issue, who must by the course of the common law be heirs to the father whenever he happens to die. Heirs presumptive are such who, if the ancestor should die immediately, would in the present circumstances/

n See the table of consanguinity annexed; wherein all the degrees of collateral kindred to the propositus are computed, so far as the tenth of the civilians and the seventh of the canonists inclusive; the former being distinguished by the numeral letters, the latter by the common cyphers.

**Quoted, 7 Wend. 335; 45 Pa. St. 434; 6 Rand. 360, 379, 411. Cited, 9.Wheat. 358; 36 N. J. L. 418.

of things be his heirs; but whose right of inheritance may be defeated by the contingency of some nearer heir being born: as a brother, or nephew, whose presumptive succession may be destroyed by the birth of a child; or a daughter, whose present hopes may be hereafter cut off by the birth of a son. Nay, even if the estate hath descended, by the death of the owner, to such brother, or nephew, or daughter; in the former cases, the estate shall be devested and taken away by the birth of a posthumous child; and, in the latter, it shall also be totally devested by the birth of a posthumous son.•*

[209] We must also remember, that † no person can be properly such an ancestor, as that an inheritance of lands or tenements can be derived from him, unless he hath had actual seisin of such lands, ‡ either by his own entry, or by the possession of his own or his ancestor's lessee for years, or by receiving rent from a lessee of the freehold :P‡ or unless he hath had what is equivalent to corporal seisin in hereditaments that are incorporeal; such as the receipt of rent, a presentation to the church in case of an advowson,¶ and the like. But he shall not be accounted an ancestor, who hath had only a bare right or title to enter or be otherwise seised.? And therefore all the cases, which will be mentioned in the present chapter, are upon the supposition that the deceased (whose inheritance is now claimed) was the last person actually seised thereof. For the law requires ¶this notoriety of possession, as evidence that the ancestor had that property in himself, which is now to be transmitted to his heir.¶ Which no

o Bro. tit. descent. 58.

p Co. Litt. 15.

q Ibid. 11.

*Cited, 9 Wheat. 360; Hawks, 325; 8 Ga. 223,

- Quoted, 13 Mon, B, 430, Discussed as to "entry," 5 Serg. & R. 386, +- Quoted, 13 Ga, 240, Cited, 1 Head, 352; 24 Miss. 276.

T-T Quoted, 8 Leigh, 394, as to use and meaning of word "transmitted."