A bequeft
made by a
fq o r man is
o f force if he
afterwards
become rich.
A bequeft of
any article,
not exifting
in the pof-
feffi on or dif-
pofal of the
teftator at his
deceafe, is
nnlefs it was
referred to his
property, in
which cafe it
mull be dif-
charged by a
payment of
the va lue r
If a perfon who is poor bequeath to another “ the thirdofhi.sproperty
f and afterwards become riçh, the legatee is in that cafe entitled
to a third of his eftate, to whatever amount ; for the bequeft does not
take effedt until after the death of the teftatqr ; and. therefore the con,
dition of its validity is, h h being poffeffed of property at the time o f
his deceafe. T h e l aw is ajgg the fame in cafe the teflator, being
rich at the time of making the will, fhould afterwards become popr, and
again acquire- wealth.
I f a perfon bequeath “ a third o f his g o a t s ” to another, and it
happen either that he has no goats, or that fuch as he had were de-
ftroyed before his death, the bequeft is null ;• for the condition of its
validity is, the teftatqr being poffeffed of the property at the time o f hh
deceafe, which is not here the cafe. If, on the contrary, having np
goats at the time of making the will, h? fhould afteryvarçL Require
goats, fo as to-leave fome at his death, one fhird -of goes- as, a fe-t
gacy to Zevd (according, to the Ramzyet Saheehj) for here the çondi-r
tion af validity (namely, that the teftator dip poffeffed of tire property)
exifts.
I f a perfon-bequeath “ «©p a t o f hh property™ to Zeyd, and afterwards
die without leaving any goats, the price of a goat muft in
that cafe be paid to Zeyd-, for the teftator’s expreffion ‘4 a g o a t ; t f his
“ property ’’ denotes his intention to bequeath the worth of the animal.
If, on the contrary, he neither bequeath “ a go.at. o f his, property,” nor
“ one t f his goats,” but Amply “ a goat,” (to Zeyd) without any
relation to his property or herd of goats, in that cafe there is a difference
o f opinion, fome faying that the bequeft is; not, valid, as the ab-
folute expreffton of the teftator denotes his intention to have been a legacy
of the animal itfelf, of which he had none,— whilft others maintain
it to be valid, for this reafon, that the teftator having fpecified a
goat, of which he had none, muft be fuppofed to have intended the
worth of it. If, on the other hand, the words of the teftator were
“ I bequeath
f J bequeath one o f my goats,” in that cafe the bequeft is evidently invalid
; becaufe the relation to his herd of goats determines the legacy
to have been re ft r idled to the animal itfelf. (A variety of cafes of this
nature occur, and are determined on the principle now ftated.)
If a perfon bequeath “ a third o f his property to his A m-W alids,
“ to the diftreffed, and to beggars,” and the Am-Walids amount to
three in all,— in that cafe, according- to the two Elders, a third of his
property is, after his,death, divided into five Ihares, of which three
are given equally among the Am-Walids, one to the diftreffed, and
one to beggars. Mohammed, on the contrary, fays that it is to be divided
into feven fhares, of which three are diftributed in equal portions
among the Am-Walids, two given to the diftreffed, and two to
beggars * .
If a perfon bequeath “ a third o f hh property fo a certain perfon and
to the dijlrejfed,” in that cafe, according to the two Riders, the third
is divided into two equal parts, one o f which is given to the perfon
named, and the other to the diftreffed ; whereas Mohammed maintains,
that it muft be divided into three fhares, one to be given, to the faid
perfon, and two.to the diftreffed.
If a perfon' bequeath “ a third o f hh property to the dijlrejfedf the
two Elders are of opinion that the executor may in that cafe give the
whole of the third to one diftreffed perfon ; whereas Mohammed holds
that it cannot be given to fewer than two.
If a perfon bequeath one hundred dirms to Zeyd, and one hundred
to Amroo, and afterwards declare Bicker to be a participator with them,
* T h e arguments are here omitted, as (in this and fome following inftances) they turn
en certain peculiarities in the grammar o f the A r a ik language.
Diftributiott
of a bequeft
made indefinitely
to three
different de-
feriptions of
perfons;
or, to an individual,
and
a particular,
clafs o f people,
or to a particular
clafs
o f people
alone.
Cafe o f a
third perfon
being admitb7