INHERITANCE. 1711

This section referred to in deciding that illegitimate children were not entitled
to workmen's compensation benefits. Scott v. Independent Ice Co., 135 Md. 348
(decided prior to the act 1920, ch. 456).

Under this section and art. 93, sec. 139, an illegitimate child held as capable of
inheriting from his mother as if he were legitimate, and his mother's surviving
sister may inherit from him. Barren v. Zimmerman, 117 Md. 298.

Under this section, the mother of illegitimate child is entitled to share in his
real and personal property just as though child were legitimate. The placing of
this section under the article " Inheritance " does not affect the law. This section
construed in connection with art. 93, sec. 125. Reese v. Starner, 106 Md. 51.

Where a woman leaves an illegitimate child, he is entitled to share in her prop-
erty equally with legitimate children. Earle v. Dawes, 3 Md. Ch. 230.

The words "dying without issue," as applied to an illegitimate, since the adop-
tion of this section, will be construed as if used with reference to persons born in
wedlock. Estep v. Mackey, 52 Md. 599. See also Reese v. Starner, 106 Md. 53.

Act of 1825, ch. 156, recognizes no father and establishes no relation of brother
and sister. Extent to which disqualification of illegitimates was removed by that
act. This section will be strictly construed. Miller v. Stewart, 8 Gill, 130 (decided
prior to the act of 1868, ch. 199). And see Reese v. Starner, 106 Md. 53; Brewer v.
Blougher, 14 Pet. 178.

Purpose and construction of this section. This section discussed in connection
with sec. 6. Hawbecker v. Hawbecker, 43 Md. 520.

This section held to have no retrospective operation. Fornshill v. Murray,
1 Bl. 485.

This section referred to in extending the benefit of a settlement upon a wife, to
a bastard son. Helms v. Franciscus, 2 Bl. 582.

Cited but not construed in Southgate v. Annan, 31 Md. 116.

Division and Election.

An. Code, sec. 32. 1904, sec. 32. 1888, sec. 32. 1820, ch. 191, secs. 8, 13, 43, 45, 46, 47.

8. If the parties entitled to the intestate's estate cannot agree upon

the division thereof, or if any person entitled to any part be a minor, an

Where nephews alone inherit, they take per stirpes and not per capita. This section
is to be read in connection with sec. 19, An. Code, 1912. The words " any father or
mother," construed. McComas v. Amos, 29 Md. 139. And see Maxwell v. Seney, 5
H. & J. 23.

Where intestate has in her lifetime gotten a judgment against one of her heirs, who,
however, predeceased intestate, children of such heir are entitled to their mother's
share, without being compelled to pay judgment. The words " and no more," discussed.
Kendall v. Mondell, 67 Md. 445.

An illegitimate child may inherit from his mother's sister. Barron v. Zimmerman,
117 Md. 299 (decided prior to act of 1912, ch. 92).

28. This section does not affect conversion of a conditional fee into an unqualified fee
under sec. 1, An. Code, 1912. B. & 0. R. R. Co. v. Patterson, 68 Md. 608.

This section referred to in construing sec. 1, An. Code, 1912. Newton v. Griffith, 1
H. & G. 130.

31. The right of the heirs to insist that property, advanced be brought into hotch-
pot is a legal right and cannot be defeated by the alienation of, or ineumbrances placed
upon, property advanced, nor is such right defeated in equity as to bringing of ad-
vancement of personalty into hotchpot with real estate, by insolvency of personal
estate of ancestor. Estate of Young, 3 Md. Ch. 465.

The courts construe this section liberally to enforce maxim that " equality is equity."
A gift to a daughter or her husband is presumed to be an advancement in absence of
proof to contrary. Proof held to show an advancement. McCabe v. Brosenne, 107
Md. 494; Dilley v. Love, 61 Md. 604; Graves v. Spedden, 46 Md. 527. Cf. Justis v.
Justis, 99 Md. 80.

What constitutes an advancement? Proof thereof. Where an advancement is brought
into hotchpot it is valued as of time it was received and enjoyed. Clark v. Willson,
27 Md. 699. And see Cecil v. Cecil, 20 Md. 156; Parks v. Parks, 19 Md. 323; Hayden v.
Burch, 9 Gill, 79; Stewart v. State, 2 H. & G. 114.

This section treats children who are heirs as co-partners. Gilpin v. Hollingsworth,
3 Md. 194; Hoffar v. Dement, 9 Gill, 137. And see Warfield v. Warfield, 5 H. & J. 464;
Mitchell v. Gover, 1 H. & J. 512; Morris v. Harris, 9 Gill, 26.