In the feudal law, he is a person related in blood to the ancestor: and, in consequence of that relationship, entitled either, merely by act of law, or, by the concurrent effect of law and the charter of investiture, to succeed at the ancestor's decease, to his real or immoveable property, not given away from him by will. In the civi law, he was considered, as representing the person of the deceased; in consequence of that supposed representation, the law cast on him the property and rights of the deceased, and fixed on him all the deceased's charges and obligations. Thus, by a fiction of the law, the person of the ancestor, was continued in the heir, so that, in all religious, moral, and civil rights and obligations, the heir, in the language of the Roman lawyers, was eadem persona cum defuncto. In the feudal system, he succeeded to the real property, only, of the ancestor; and this, not under any supposed representation to him, or in consequence of any supposed continuation of his person, but as related to him in blood, and, in consequence of that relationship, as a person designated, by the original feudal contract, to succeed to the fief. By the civil law, every person was considered as capable of instituting an heir; where the party died, without instituting an heir, the law introduced a necessary heir. Hence, the distinction in that law, between the heredes, sui necesarii nati, and facti. In the feudal law, it was an acknowledged maxim, that God only can make an heir. Hence the opposite maxim of the feuds, solus Deus potest facere hoeredem non homo. By the Roman law, in consequence of the fiction, that the heir was the same person with the deceased, he was bound to acquit all the deceased's obligations, not only, so far as the property derived by him from his ancestor extended, but, in their utmost extent. The first indulgence granted the heir, was, that, the pretor allowed him a certain time, in which, he might deliberate, whether he would accept the succession or not; at the expiration of which, he was obliged, either absolutely to accept, or absolutely to renounce, the inheritance. Justinian established still further in favour of the heir, a liberty of accepting the inheritance, with, what was termed, the benefit of an inventory, that is, a condition, that he should not be liable beyond the value of the property of the deceased. Nothing of this was known in the polity of the feudal association. In the intendment of that law, the heir, as it has been observed before, came under the original feudal contract: He claimed nothing as a gift from the ancestor: He derived all from the original donor:

He could not therefore, be liable to any of the obligations of the ancestor. 'Another maxim of the Roman law was, that the representation of the heir to the ancestor, did not take effect, till he determined his election to accept the succession, by what was termed, an additio hoereditatis. In the feud, the law cast the right of heirship on the heir, immediately upon the ancestor's decease; and though, when the doctrine of alienation was introduced, the ancestor, by disposing of all his property, might render his right of heirship perfectly nugatory, so far as related to the property of which the ancestor died seized; yet, upon this account, he was not less the ancestor's heir. Thus, by the Roman law, as fixed by Justinian, it was at the party's option, whether he would, or would not, be invested with the character of heir. The feud left him no option: it forced the heritable quality on him; and the dead man, in the language of that law, gave seisin to the living, and forced on him the character of heir. Hence the maxim and expression of the feud, le mort saisit le vif. From the supposed representation in the Roman law, of the deceased, by the heir, it became a maxim of that law, that no person could die testate, as to part of his property, and intestate as to the other part. The consequence of this was, that, whoever succeeded as heir, whether he took the entirety, or a fractionary part only of the property of the testator, was held in consequence of that heirship, to continue the person of the ancestor. In the feudal law, after testamentary alienation was allowed, the contrary maxim ever prevailed; the party might die testate, as to one part of his property, and intestate as to the other. To sum up the contrast in a few words; - by the Roman law, the heir was a person appointed, indiscriminately, by the law, or the deceased, to represent him; and, in consequence of that representation, was entitled to his property, and bound by his obligations. In the feudal law, the heir was a person of the blood of the ancestor, appointed, by the original contract, to the succession, or, at least invested with a capacity of succession; and, in consequence of that succession, was supposed, more by the general notions of mankind, than by the notions of the feudal polity, to represent the ancestor. By the Roman law, the heir succeeded to the property of the ancestor, in consequence of his civil representation of him, and supposed continuation of his person: in the feudal law, he acquired a national representation to the ancestor, in consequence of the feudal succession. In the Roman law, real and personal property were equally the subject of inheritance: - in the feudal law, inheritance was confined to real property. The Roman heir claims, as such, all from the person last possessed, and nothing from the original donor: the feudal heir claims, as such, all from the donor, and nothing from the person last possessed.

VI. 4. The same difference prevailed in these laws, with respect to the ORDER OF SUCCESSION. By the Roman law, as it was finally settled by the Novels, on the decease of an intestate, the descendants, of whatever degree, were called to the succession, in exclusion of all other relations, whether ascendants or collaterals, and without regard to primogeniture, or preference to sex. Where the intestate left no descendants, such ascendants as were nearest in degree, male or female, paternal or maternal, succeeded to his estate, in exclusion of the remoter heirs, and without any regard to representation; but, with this exception, that, where the deceased left brothers and sisters, of the whole blood, besides ascendants, all succeeded in equal portions, in capita; and here, if, besides ascendants, the deceased left children of brothers or sisters of the whole blood, the children succeeded to their parent's share, by representation, in stirpes. Where the intestate left no descendants, and no ascendants, the law called the collaterals to the succession, giving a preference to the whole blood. By the law of the code, if no one was left in the descending, ascending, or collateral lines, the husband succeeded to the estate of the wife, and the wife to that of the husband. This was altered by the law of the Novels. In default of a legal heir, the estate became a res caduca, and the fiscus, or exchequer succeeded. Such appears to be the general outline of the Roman law, respecting successions. The feudal regulations respecting successions, differed from it, in almost every respect. Originally fiefs were granted to be held at the will of the donor, and where therefore, resumable at his pleasure; then, they were granted for a year certain; then, for the life of the grantee; then, to such of the sons of the grantee, as the donor should appoint. Then, all the sons, and in default of sons, the grandsons were called to the succession of the fief; in the process of time, it was opened to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th, generations, and afterwards to all the male descendants, claiming through males, of the first grantee; and, at last, was suffered to diverge, generally, to collaterals.