intestate heir

The last case concerned an implied trust at the expense of the intestate heir.

The general rule was that only a male related to the deceased could qualify as intestate heir.

The only way the trust can be given effect is by construing it as charged on the intestate heir in favour of some other person.

Here the intestate heir is again the nearest agnate, who is in this case a brother.

The imperial ruling is that a trust in favour of her brother (as intestate heir) must be construed.

His intention, quite clearly, must be that on her death she should be succeeded by her intestate heir.

He has mentioned his intestate heir, and this is sufficient to allow him to claim a trust exists in his favour.

What follows clarifies: his brother's posthumous children are admissible as intestate heirs.

Since a woman can have no sui heredes, the intestate heir will be the nearest agnate, who is in this case her sister and coheir.

The difficulty is that the wife has died intestate, and her intestate heir is precisely the person she was asked to ward off from her property.

A trust can be charged on a brother's posthumous child: for intention alone is relevant in trusts, and the opinion of Gallus prevailed that the posthumous children of others can also be our own intestate heirs.

Manus marriage was an unequal relationship; it changed a woman's intestate heirs from her siblings to her children, not because she was their mother, but because in law her position was the same as that of a daughter to her husband.

Similar to the Biscayan institution, with the exceptions that, only the spouse can be the deceased's representative and two additional limitations regarding the beneficiaries: Either the latter must be appointed among those nominated by the testator or, in the absence of such a provision, the beneficiaries shall be the intestate heirs.