S8i HELMS v, FRANCISCUS.

ward of the court, where the husband has been guilty of any fraud
or gross misconduct, the fortune is always confined to the wife and
her children by that, or any other marriage; and even where there
was strong reason to 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, (r)

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 ille-
gitimate brother bom of the same father and mother who was un-
provided for. (s) And so too a bastard cannot marry his mother
or illegitimate sister, (f) 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 legitimate chil-
dren, (u) 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 descendants of each other
in like manner as if they had been born in lawful wedlock, (w)

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

(r) Millet v. Rowse, 7 Ves. 420; Ball v. Coults, 1 Ves. & Bea. 301.~(s) Har-
vey v. Harvey, 2 P. Will. 21; Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, i Jac. & Walk. 627.--(t)
The Qttten v, Chafin, 3 Salk. 66; Haines v. Jescott, 5 Mod. 168; S. C. Ld. Raym.
68.—(tt) Stevenson v. Sullivant, 5 Wheat, 207, 262, note; Just, Inst, by Coop.
568.—(w) 1825, ch. 156.