At common law, in order that one might inherit as a collateral kinsman of the intestate, it was necessary that they both be descended not only from the same person, but from the same marriage of that person, that is, the claimant must have been a kinsman of the whole, and not of the half, blood. So, one could not inherit from his half brother, even though the land had descended from their common parent to such half brother, and though otherwise the land would escheat for want of heirs.35 This rule has been changed by statute in most, if not all, the states, but the statutory provisions on the subject are very divergent. In a few states, kindred of the half blood are given the same rights of succession as those of the whole blood; and in some they inherit half shares only as against the whole shares passing to those of the whole blood. In a number of states, while the distinction between the whole and half blood no longer exists in connection with land purchased by the intestate, it does exist as to ancestral land, so as to exclude from any share therein collateral kin not of the blood of the ancestor from whom the land was derived.35a In a few states kindred of the half blood do not take except in default of kindred of the whole blood in the same degree of relationship.36 In the absence of any reference to the matter of whole or half blood, the statute has al34. Post, Sec. 493.

35. Litt. Sec.Sec. 6-8; 2 Blackst. Comm. 227.

35a. Post, Sec. 494.

36. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3133; 1 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 70; 1 Dembitz, Land Titles, Sec. 37. The cases on the subject are collected in editorial notes 29 L. R. A. 552, 26 L. R. A. N. S. 603, L. R. A. 1916C, 923.

Most invariably been construed to apply without reference to such a distinction.37