The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-07-28
THE Personalities OF LAW.

ClOn Is WDdC is CdIleO the LecnnlcaIltleS
the law. And, at first sight, they seem t.
deserve all that is said against them. Fo
what is apparently more absurd than that
if decedent, in his will, leaves propert,
to his wife .'during her widowhood," th'
limitation is legal; while if he devises it tt
her '"on condition that she remains unmar
ried," the restriction is worthless! Or
why, common sense may ask, should :
grant to A. for his life. and afterwards tx
the "heirs of his body" convey an estat,
in tail? Why should the phrase ''childrer
living at the time of his decease'' divide ar
estate equally among surviving children
grandchildren and great grandchildren
per capita, as the law has it? Why should
q contract to give an assistant fifty pei
cent. of the profits of your business make
him nothing but clerk, while bargain
to share with him half the profits elevates
him to the condition of a partner? A
careless thinker, recalling these and other
technicalities of the law, might almost be
pardoned for pronouncing the whole science
| farce.
But Pope has shrewdly said, "a little
learning is a dangerous thing" For a
thorough knowledge of Jurisprudence re-
veals the reasons for such technicalities,
as well as the advantages they afford. Take
the distinction between a ''limitation" and
''condition precedent I've use the legal
phraseology for its greater defniteness-as
applied to property devised to testator's
widow. The law, at first, decided against
any restriction ON the widow marrying
again, arguing that such restrictions were
opposed to the true interests of the COM
monwealth. Hence devise sson condition
that she remains unmarried" came to be
considered invalid. But the hardship of
the cases, which frequently occurred, where
the widow marrying again, took the proper
ty to a new family of children, who had
none of the blood of the original deviser,
induced the courts to wink at restriction,
though, for the sake of consistency, they
were forced to compel the use of differ
ent phraseology, such as "duraate vidui-
tate," that is. ''during widowhood." A
condition precedent'' is now known, by
every sound lawyer, to be worthless in a
will. If the widow is to be prevented from
marrying, the estate must be devised to her
under a 'limitation.''
The explanation of other technicalities
would be easy, for the law, however absurd
it sometimes seems, is always strictly logi-
cal. These technicalities, too, assist to
give it precision. Their very subtlety
enables a competent conveyancer to draw
a will, or prepare deed, so that no posi-
BILE controversy can arise as to its true in
depreciation. A long series of decisions,
extending over several centuries, has de-
termined the exact meaning of every word
to be employed, and of every collocation of
such words. 1t is not generally known,
perhaps, that the disputes which occupy
the time of the courts, unless in mere con-
troversies as to fact, may always arise
from wills, deeds or contracts, drawn up
without the Intervention of lawyers. With
in the present generation, the British Par
lament, desiring to simplify the law, en-
acted that the plainest form of words, as
Il, John Smith, sell my horse" should
be sufficient to convey an estate in fee;
but it was found Immediately, that if this
practice was resorted to the greatest ambi-
guilty would arise, controversies be multi
piled in consequence, and no man know
how to devise or convey an estate properly.
In fact. as the most eminent judges de-
clared, the whole phraseology of the law
would have to be remodelled by new CEN
tures of laborious decisions. On the whole
it is better to leave legal technicalities
where they are, for to destroy them would
necessary.-PhiL. Ledger.