554 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.—2 BLAND.

believe that one of the two children of the wife was illegitimate,
as the Court could not enter into that question, the settlement was
made upon the wife and both the children. Millet v. Rowse, 7 Ves.
420; Ball, v. Coults, 1 Ves. & Bea. 301.

The English books, in reference to this subject, must be under-
stood, however, as always speaking of legitimate children, who
are capable of taking by descent. According to the law of Eng-
land a bastard is, in many respects, considered as the son of no
one; and particularly as to the right to take by descent or distri-
bution. He is reckoned as a terminus a quo; the first of his family;
he can, therefore, for most civil purposes, have no heir or next of
kin but the legitimate issue of his own body. But, in some other
respects, and for all moral purposes his consanguine relations are
regarded; for it has been held, that in the Court of Chancery a
more liberal allowance for the maintenance of an infant may be
approved, in consideration of the circumstances of an illegitimate
brother born of the same father and mother who was unprovided
for. Harvey v. Harvey, 2 P. Will. 21; Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 1
Jac. & Walk. 627. And so too a bastard cannot marry his mother or
illegitimate sister. The Queen v. Chafin, 3 Salk. 66; Haines v. Jes-
cott, 5 Mod. 108; S. C. Ld. Raym. 68. By the civil law, spurious
children are allowed to take as heirs and next of kin of their
mother equally with those who are legitimate; and, claiming under
the mother, they are, in general, entitled to the same rights as le-
gitimate children. Stevenson v. Sullivant, 5 Wheat. 207, 262, note;
Just. Imt. by Coop. 568. These principles of the civil law have
been sanctioned and adopted as a part of our Code by an Act of
Assembly which declares that the illegitimate children of a female
shall be capable of taking and inheriting both real and personal
estate from their mother, or from each other, or from the descen-
dants of each other in like manner as if they had been born in
lawful Avedlock. 1825, ch. 156.

Whence it is clear, that on the death of the plaintiff Anna intes-
tate, while sole, her illegitimate son Frederick would take as if he
had been born in lawful wedlock; and therefore, upon those: prin-
ciples by which this subject is governed, I am of opinion, that he,
as the inheritable, though bastard child of the plaintiff Anna,
ought to be allowed to participate in the benefit of the settlement

about * to be made upon his mother. Because it is evident.
583 from the general spirit of the cases in relation to this sub-
ject, that the fortune of the wife is settled upon her and her chil-
dren, looking to her blood, and confining the descent or distribu-
tion to those who would lawfully take from her as her immediate
descendants. This bastard son Frederick is a child who, upon
those principles, would take according to our law; and conse-
quently the settlement upon the plaintiff Anna must be extended