1 59 C L A I M S ; B o o k X X I V .
A claim o f
.offspring cannot
be eftablifhed,
after
an acknow-,
ledgment in
favour o f another
perfon.
•If 3 perfon be poflefled of a boy, and- ^eektr-e, the boy to be the
fon of a certain abfent flave, and afterwards d.eelaie bin?, to be bis, own
fen, in this, cafe, the, parentage of the pofleffor can never be eftablifhed,
although, the abfent; flave vyereto d(ny the boy to be his fen-—'This is
according, to Haneefa, The two dil'ciples have faid that, in cafe of
the denjai of; the flave, the parentage of the pofleflor is eftablifhed.—
A fimilar difegyeement, fubftfts where the, pofleffor declares, the boy in
his. poflefflpp. to. be the fen, of a. particular perfon, and. born of his, wife,
and. after(w,ards himfelf claims the parentage of him.— T h e teafoping
of the two difciples.is that the acknowledgment, by the mafjter,, of the
boy befog the ion. of hfollave, is repelled, by the denial of the Have*
•whence, the cafe becomes the fame as if no fuch acknowledgment had.
ever been made.— Now, although parentage cannot be annulled after
the eftablifhmept. qf it, yet an. acknowledgment of parentage is.fet, afide
by the denial of the perfon who is the objeft. of, it, and the acknow^
ledgment is, aferibed to levity or compulfion;—-(^s,i£ a. perfon,, by. way
of levity, or under the influence of compulfion, fhould make an acknowledgment
that his, flave was his fan, in. which, cafe his.ackppvy-
ledgment is not,valid :)— the cafe, in queftion,, therefore,, becomes,the
fame as i f a purchafer of a flave fhould acknowledge that th e f e l le r ,
“ had emancipated him,” and, the feller deny the fame, and the purchafer
then fay that “ he had himfelf emancipated h i m f o r in.thfo)
cafe the laft affertion of the purchafer is credited, and. the willa-right
with rpfped to the, flave thus, emancipated refts, with, him; and hist
acknowledgment- with regard to the feller is, confidered as neyer,
having exifted; fo alio in the cafe in queftion.— It would bp other.-
wilc if the boy fhould verify the firft affertion of the pofleffor, (that
“ he is the fon of a. certain abfept flave,” ) and the poffqflpr. himfelf
fhould then claim the iffue; becaufe the claim would.in fuch a,cafe
be invalid, as having been preferred after the proof of parentage, in
another. It. would alfo be otherwife i f the flave fliould remainfolept,
without either confirming or, denying the c la im fo r , in this cafe alfo,
the fubfequent claim of the pofleffor would be invalid, , becaufe-the
^ right
CpAP. V, C L A I M S .
right of the perfon acknowledged relates tb the Uy, and there is a
poflibi-lity that he mayderrfy the affertion of the pofleffor.— T h e boy*
therefore, in this inftance, {lands in the fame predicament with th'e
fon of a woman who has been required to make affeveration * , and
whofe parentage cannot be proved by any other than the imprheam•*
(namely, the hufband of the woman,) who has the power of afterward
contradiding himfelf, and declaring that the faid fen is his
iftte.— Hone fa , on the other hand, argues that parentage is a matter
which, after proof, cannot be fet afide; nor can the acknowledge^
ment of fuch a matter be undone by the rejedion of the perfon who
is the objed of i t : it therefore continues in force notwithftandidg the
rejedion; and hence the claim of the maffer, fubfequent to fuch acknowledgment,
is invalid, although the flave fhould contradid the
acknowledgment; in the fame manner as if a perfon fhould bear tef-
timony to the parentage of an infant, and, his teftimony being fet afide
from fufpicion, he fhould then claim the faid infant as his fon; in
which cafe his claim would not be valid; and fo alfo in the cafe in
queftion. T h e ground on which this proceeds is that the right of
the perfon in queftion (namely, the flave) relates to the boy, infomuch
that, if the flave fhould verify the aflertion of the maffer fubfequent
to a contradidion, the parentage of the boy is eftablifhed in the flavef
and, in the fame manner, the right of the boy is conneded with the
acknowledgment of the mafter; and hence the acknowledgment cannot
be fet afide by the contradidion of the flave-f.— With refped
to the cafe of a purchafer acquiring the right of Willa, adduced by the
two difciples as analogous to this*, it may be replied that a difagree-
ment fubfiftsi concerning this cafe alfo; as Haneefa does not admit the
dodrine there advanced:— or,- if it be admitted, ftill there fubfifts
* See V o l. I . p. 344.
t Becaufe a declaration which tends to'eftabfrfli a right cannot be revoked-; and, in
e ca e in queftion, the right o f the boy is to have' his parentage eftablifhed and af-
cetftained. . ®