Where a person takes land from a relative who dies intestate he takes by descent. Land taken under a will, even if the deceased was the parent or other near relative, is not taken by descent. The main principles of law governing descent are very old and have probably never been so well set out as in the following extracts from Coke's Commentaries:

"Descent, descensus, cometh of the Latin word descendo, and, in the legal sense, it signifieth, when lands do by right of blood fall unto any after the death of his ancestors; or a descent is a means whereby one doth derive him title to certain lands, as heir to some of his ancestors. And of this, and of that which hath been spoken, doth arise another division of estates in fee-simple, viz., every man, that hath a lawful estate in fee simple, hath it either by descent, or by purchase.

"Descents." This word cometh of the Latin word descendere, id est, loco superiore in infeeriorem movere' and in legal understanding it is taken when land, etc, after the death of the ancestor is cast by course of law upon the heir, which the law calleth a descent. And this is the noblest and worthiest means whereby lands are derived from one to another, because it is wrought and vested by the act of law, and right of blood, unto the worthiest and next of the blood and kindred of the ancestor; and therefore, it hath not in the common law altogether the same signification that it hath in the civil law; for the civilians call him, hoeredem, qui ex testamento succedit in universum jus testatoris. But by the common law he is only heir which succeedeth by right of blood. And this agreeth well with the etymology of the word (heir) to whom the lands descend, for hoeres dicitur ab hoerendo, quia qui hoeres est haeret, hoc est, proximus est sanguine illi cujus est hoeres. So as he that is hoeres, sanguinis, est haeres, et heres haereditatis.

"And the learning of degrees set out in the civil and canon law (wherein I find some difference) is worth the knowledge, to the end that Littleton and the law may the better be understood, which I will divide into certain rules; whereof the first is:

'That a person added to a person in the line of consanguinity maketh a degree. And it is to be understood, that a fine is threefold, viz., the fine ascending, descending, and collateral. And first, for example, of the ascending fine, take the son and add the father, and it is one degree ascending; add the grandfather to the father, and it is a second degree ascending.

"So as how many persons there be, take away one, and you have the number of degrees. If there be four persons it is the third degree, if five the fourth, for one must exceed, and then you have the degree. Likewise by the descending, take the father and add the son, and it is one degree; then take the son and add the grandchild, and it is the second degree; and so likewise further. Wherein observe that the father, son, and grandchild, albeit there are three persons, yet they make but two degrees, because (as it hath been said) one must exceed for making a degree.

"It is to be noted, that in every line the person must be reckoned from whom the computation is made. And there is no difference between the canon and civil law in the ascending and descending line; for those whom the civilians do reckon in the second degree, the canonists do reckon in the first; and those whom they place the fourth, these place in the second. Therefore, if we will know in what degree two of kindred do stand according to the civil law, we must begin our reckoning from one, by ascending to the person from whom both are branched, and then by descending to the other to whom we do count, and it will appear in what degree they are. For example, in brothers' and sisters' sons, take one of them and a second to his father, there is one degree; from the father to the grandfather, that is the second degree; then descend from the grandfather to his son, that is the third degree; then from his son to his son, that is the fourth. But by the canon law there is another computation, for the canonists do ever begin from the stock, namely, from the person of whom they do descend; of whose distance the question is. For example, if the question be, in what degree the sons of two brothers stand by the canon law, we must begin from the grandfather and descend to one son, that is one degree; then descend to his son, that is another degree; then descend again from the grandfather to his other son, that is one degree; then descend to his son, that is a second degree; so in what degree either of them are distant from the common stock, in the same degree they are distant between themselves; and if they be not equally distant, then we must observe another rule. In what degree the most remote is distant from the common stock, in the same degree they are distant between themselves; and so the most remote maketh the degree. Gradus dicitur a gradiendo, quia gradiendo ascenditur et descenditur. And thus much of the civil and canon law is necessary to the knowledge of the common law in this point."

It is to be noted that the Common law rule and the Canon law rule for determining the degree of relationship existing between two collateral relatives was the same, and that both differed from the Civil law rule. The Civil law rule on this point has been adopted in this country.

The following" are Blackstone's famous seven canons of descent:

1. Inheritances shall lineally descend to the issue of the person who last died actually seized, but shall never lineally ascend. Actual seisin is necessary. Thus, if A should die leaving two sons, B, the elder, C, the younger, and B should die, never having been actually seised, C, the younger son, would inherit to the exclusion of B's heirs, as being the heir of A, the person last actually seised.

2. Male issue shall be preferred to female. A dies leaving three daughters and one son. The son inherits the whole estate to the exclusion of the daughters.

3. Where there are two or more males in equal degree, the eldest only shall inherit; where there are two or more female heirs in the same degree, they take as co-partners, and share and share alike.

4. The lineal descendants of any person deceased shall represent their ancestor, i. e., shall stand in the same place that the person himself would have stood, had he been living.

5. On the failure of lineal descendants of the person last seised, the inheritance shall descend to his collateral relations.

6. The collateral heir of the person last seised must be his next collateral kinsman of the whole blood. The half-blood, at common law, could never inherit.

7. In collateral inheritances, kindred derived from male ancestors, however remote, shall be admitted before those derived from female ancestors, however near.

Some of these canons, particularly the first three and the last, have been changed by statute in many of the States, the subject of descent now being entirely regulated by State statutes in this country.