DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47347#0140
J 24
APPENDIX.
of the state. Lest we should tire the reader, we pass over
in silence a multitude of petty errors, which do not imme-
diately affect the question at issue: we shall confine our-
selves to a single example, to prove how the author has
studied the Spanish lawyers whom he quotes every moment
in his publication. He says (p. 47), with reference to the
so justly celebrated Molina, that, in the treatise which we
have likewise quoted, lib. iii. cap. 4, § 30 and 31,
Molina declares, in a formal manner, for the exclusion of
daughters in favour of male agnates; but he takes good care
not to say that this author admits that course only in cases of
concurrence between daughters and agnates of the same line
and the same degree, as is particularly stipulated in las leyes
de las Siete Partidas, whose validity in regard to the succes-
sion to the crown Molina acknowledges, lib. i. cap. 2, § 10,
as jus plusquam notissimum. The subject which Molina is
discussing is this: Fceminam primogenitam ad majoratus
successionem, masculo ejusdem linece et gradus deficiente, ad-
mittendam esse, exclusis masculis remotioribus.
In paragraph 31, Molina says that a question has been
raised whether at least the agnati transversales respectu idtimi
possessoris, descending at the same time in a right line from
the founder, that is to say, the brothers of the late king,
ought not to be preferred to his daughters. He thus decides
that question, by saying, §. 32, what our anonymous author
has also forgotten to report: “ As this would be excluding
daughters from what belongs to them by the common law *,
a thing which cannot be done without evident proofs of a
particular family statute, it is right, in the doubt itself,
always to pronounce in favour of the daughters.”
Now that we have demonstrated the fallacy of the prin-
cipal facts on which the anonymous author grounds his
1 Quocl sibi jure communi vompetit. This Jzw commune is, with Molina, the
Jaws of las Partidas.
APPENDIX.
of the state. Lest we should tire the reader, we pass over
in silence a multitude of petty errors, which do not imme-
diately affect the question at issue: we shall confine our-
selves to a single example, to prove how the author has
studied the Spanish lawyers whom he quotes every moment
in his publication. He says (p. 47), with reference to the
so justly celebrated Molina, that, in the treatise which we
have likewise quoted, lib. iii. cap. 4, § 30 and 31,
Molina declares, in a formal manner, for the exclusion of
daughters in favour of male agnates; but he takes good care
not to say that this author admits that course only in cases of
concurrence between daughters and agnates of the same line
and the same degree, as is particularly stipulated in las leyes
de las Siete Partidas, whose validity in regard to the succes-
sion to the crown Molina acknowledges, lib. i. cap. 2, § 10,
as jus plusquam notissimum. The subject which Molina is
discussing is this: Fceminam primogenitam ad majoratus
successionem, masculo ejusdem linece et gradus deficiente, ad-
mittendam esse, exclusis masculis remotioribus.
In paragraph 31, Molina says that a question has been
raised whether at least the agnati transversales respectu idtimi
possessoris, descending at the same time in a right line from
the founder, that is to say, the brothers of the late king,
ought not to be preferred to his daughters. He thus decides
that question, by saying, §. 32, what our anonymous author
has also forgotten to report: “ As this would be excluding
daughters from what belongs to them by the common law *,
a thing which cannot be done without evident proofs of a
particular family statute, it is right, in the doubt itself,
always to pronounce in favour of the daughters.”
Now that we have demonstrated the fallacy of the prin-
cipal facts on which the anonymous author grounds his
1 Quocl sibi jure communi vompetit. This Jzw commune is, with Molina, the
Jaws of las Partidas.