[Footnote 295: What our Author treats of, as a consequence of a Man’s receiving lands in marriage-hood, has received considerable extension in succeeding times, and has become known by the Title of the _Curtesy of England_. But, as Lord Coke observes, it was known to the _Scotch_ and _Irish_, and, he might have added, to the _Normans_. Craig cites a passage to shew that it was not unknown to the _Roman_ Code, and Sir Wm. Blackstone quotes an authority to prove that it was in use amongst the ancient _Almains_ or _Germans_. Like Dower, it is not a provision arising from the compact of the parties, but emanating from the liberality of the Law. As to the evidence of the existence of the offspring, the Regiam Majestatem expressly coincides with our Author, (L. 2. c. 58.) and in this, is followed by Bracton, Fleta, and Britton. Lord Coke, however, asserts, that if born alive, it is sufficient, though not heard to cry, which, indeed, is consistent with reason—for the crying of the child is merely _evidence_ of life—which may as well be furnished by a thousand other circumstances. It is not improbable, that as an adherence to the strict Letter of the ancient Law, as laid down by Glanville, had been found extremely inconvenient, it had, therefore, been silently abrogated, previous to the time of Lord Coke. (See Craig L. 2. D. 22. s. 40. Le Grand Custum. de Norm. c. 120. 2 Bl. Comm. 125. and Co. Litt. 29. b.)] [Footnote 296: He forfeited it under the Norman Code by a subsequent marriage, with another woman. (Le Grand Custum. de Norm. c. 121.)] And this is some reason why Homage is not usually received for Lands in Marriage-hood. For if Land were so given in Marriage-hood, or in any other way, that Homage was received for it, then, it would never afterwards revert to the Donor, or his Heirs, as we have explained. If, however, such Woman take a second Husband, the same Rule prevails, as to the second, as we have stated concerning the first, whether the first should have left an Heir or not. But when any one sues for Land as the Marriage-hood of his Wife, or when the Woman or her Heir does so, then, a distinction must be made, whether the Land is demanded as against the Donor, or his Heir, or against a stranger. If the Suit be against the Donor, or his Heir, then, it is at the Election of the Demandant, whether he would proceed in the Court Christian, or in the Secular Court.