legatee entitled to any thing. This is where the fécond bequeft is immedi-
« mg. atgiy connected in the fame fentence with the firft. But if they be,
mentioned feparately, (as i f the teftator Ihould firft fay “ I bequeath
i| pay female Have to Zeyd,” and then remain filent, and afterwards
fay “ I bequeath the child with which Ihe is pregnant to Arfiroo,” )
the effeCt, according to Aboo Yoofaf, is the fame as above mentioned ;
whereas Mohammed maintain? that in this cafe the female Have goes to
the firft legatee, and her child is. lhared, equally between the two;
(and the fame holds with refpeCf to the two'other cafes of the ring
and the bag.) T h e argument of Aboo Yoofaf is that as the teftator
firft bequeathed the female Have, and afterwards the child in her womb,
it may be inferred that his objeCt in the firft bequeft was the female
Have only, the fécond bequeft being merely an. explanation of his
meaning in the. firft,— which explanation is approved, whether it be
connected in the fame fentence or not ; for as the bequeft is not binding
till after the death of the teftator, his explanation connectedly or
»«connectedly is one and the fame*; in the fame manner as ‘holds
where a perfon firft bequeaths the perfon of his Have to one and afterwards
the fervice of him to another,— in which cafe the legatee' of the
perfon is not a partner of the legatee of ufufruCt with refpeCt to th e .
fervice of the Have. The argument of Mohammed is that the. word ring
comprehends both the ftone and the hoop, and fo likewife, the word
female flave comprehends both the Have herfelf and alfo the child in
her womb,— and' the word bag includes both the .bag and its- contents.
With -refpeCt,' therefore, to the ring-ftone, the child, arid the contents
of thejrag, there are two different bequefts to two different perfons,
where both the legatees are equal partners in each. Nor, is the fécond
bequeft, in this inftan.ce, a retractation of the firft, it being, in effect,
the fame as where a perfon firft bequeaths a ring (for inftance)
to one, %nd again bequeaths the fame ring to another,— in which café
* I n o t h e r w o r d s , “ h e i s a t l i b e r t y , a t a n y p e r i o d a f t e r m a k i n g t h e b e q u e f t , t o a l t e r
“ o r a m e n d i t . ”
the fecond bequeft is not a retractation o f the firft, but the two legatees
are equal partners in the ring; and fo here likewife. It is different
where a man firft bequeaths the perfon of his flave to one, and then
the property of him to another, as the word Jlave does not comprehend
the fervice of that flave. It is alfo different where a fecond bequeft
follows in immediate! connexion with the firft; for in that cafe
the whole forms (as it were) one fentence, indicating the defign of
the teftator to be that the hoop of the ring (for inftance) fhall go to
one, and the ftone to the other.
If a perfon bequeath to anyone “ the fruit of his garden,” in
that cafe the legatee gets the fruit actually in being at the time of the
teftator’s death, not what maybe produced'afterwards. If, how-
eyer, the teftator fay “ 1 bequeath the fruit of my garden perpetually-
“ to fuch an one,” the legatee is in that cafe entitled to the fruit then
exifting, as well as to whatever may afterwards grow there durino-
his life. Blit if, on the other hand, the teftator bequeath the produce
of his garden, (not the fr u it,) the legatee is then entitled to the pre7
fent produce and to whatever may be collected from it until his death,
although the word perpetual fhould not have been expreffed; for as
the word fr u it, in its common acceptation, means a thing actually in
being, it cannot therefore be applied to what is not in being, unlefs
by an exprefs provifion for that purpofe;— whereas produce, in the
common acceptation of the term, comprehends not only what at pre-
fent exifts, but alfo what may hereafter exift in fucceffion ; and therefore
its including what may appear after the teftator’s. deceafe does
not depend upon the mention, of any particular provifion or
term.
I f a perfon bequeath the wool of a Iheep, or its milk, or young, and
then die, the legatee is in that cafe entitled to whatever may baextant
(of thefe things) at the period of the teftator’ s death, and not to what
may afterwards appear, notwithftanding the word “ perpetuar'
have
A bequeft of
the fruit o f a
garden implies
the pre~
f e n t iruitonly,
unlefs it be
expreffed in
perpetuity.
A bequeft o f
the produce
o f an animal
implies the
exiftent produce
only> in