1710 ARTICLE 46.

This section applies although parties are not at time of birth of children capable
of contracting marriage, and children are result of adulterous intercourse. Purpose
and construction of this section. Hawbecker v. Hawbecker, 43 Md. 518; Scanlon v.
Walshe, 81 Md. 129.

Under what circumstances this section will not apply, although technically com-
plied with. Estoppel. Evidence. Sufficiency of proof. Presumption of legitimacy.
Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 128.

This section referred to in construing sec. 7. Miller v. Stewart, 8 Gill, 130.

Cited but not construed in Richardson v. Smith, 80 Md. 98; Southgate v. Annan,
31 Md. 116; Earle v. Dawes, 3 Md. Ch. 231; Bevans v. Taylor, 7 H. & J. 1.

See notes to art. 93, sec. 125. See art. 93, sec. 139.

An. Code, sec. 30. 1904, sec. 30. 1888, sec. 30. 1825, ch. 156. 1868, ch. 199.
7. The illegitimate child or children of any female, and the issue of
any such illegitimate child or children shall he capable in law to take and
inherit both real and personal estate from their mother, or from each other,
or from the descendants of each other, as the case may he; and where
such illegitimate child or children shall die, leaving no descendants, or
brothers or sisters, or the descendants of such brothers and sisters, then
and in that case, the mother of such illegitimate child or children, if
living, shall inherit both real and personal estate from such illegitimate
child or children; and if the mother be dead, then and in that case, the
heirs at law of the mother shall inherit the real and personal estate of
such illegitimate child or children in like manner as if such illegitimate
child or children had been born in lawful wedlock.

This section referred to in holding that a recovery may not be had by a mother
under art. 67, sec. 2, for the death of an illegitimate child. State v. Hagerstown,
etc., Rwy. Co., 139 Md. 79.

This section seferred to in deciding that an estate passed to the mother under sec. 21,
An. Code, 1912. Donnelly v. Turner, 60 Md. 85.

Cited but not construed in Latrobe v. Carter, 83 Md. 283; Garner v. Wood, 71 Md. 38.

21. Persons cannot claim under this section until those included in secs. 19 and 20,
An. Code, 1912, are extinct, and the proviso at the end of sec. 27 of said Code does not
alter this rule; hence grand-nieces take to the exclusion of first cousins. Hoffman v.
Watson, 109 Md. 544. And see Suman v. Harvey, 114 Md. 241.

For an estate held to descend to the mother under this section, see Donnelly v.
Turner, 60 Md. -85.

This section referred to in construing sec. 27, An. Code, 1912—see notes thereto.
Suman v. Harvey, 114 Md. 241.

23. Where an illegitimate woman dies leaving no descendants, her husband in-
herits her estate. Southgate v. Annan, 31 Md. 115.

This section referred to in construing art. 45, sec. 7, and art. 93, sec. 335. Vogel v.
Turnt, 110 Md. 201.

25. This section means that children of an intestate born after his death shall take just
as if born before his death, but no other relation born after his death shall take as heir
in his own right. (See notes to art. 93, sec. 138.) Shriver v. State, 65 Md. 283.

This section applied to a sister of the intestate. Thomas v. Higgins, 47 Md. 453.

27. In view of proviso clause at end of this section, an uncle or aunt of intestate
inherits to exclusion of the children of deceased uncles and aunts, and first cousins, to
exclusion of children of deceased first cousins. The distinction drawn between taking
by representation and by inheritance. This section excludes grand-nephews when
nephews are living. The " brothers and sisters " referred to in this section, are those of
intestate. Who are " collaterals "? The last clause of this section construed in connec-
tion with secs. 19 and 21, An. Code, 1912. Suman v. Harvey, 114 Md. 241; Hoffman v.
Watson, 109 Md. 546; McComas v. Amos, 29 Md. 131; Elwood v. Lannon, 27 Md. 210;
Porter v. Askew, 11 G. & J. 346; Levering v. Heighe, 3 Md. Ch. 374; Levering v.
Heighe, 2 Md. Ch. 89; Elliott v. Elliott, 2 Md. Ch. 468.