A similar doubt arises, when any one has conceded and given a certain portion of his Land to his younger Brother, and his Heirs. Let us suppose, that the latter dies, without leaving any Heir of his own body, and the former seizes into his own hands the Land of his deceased Brother, as being vacant and within his Fee, against whom his own two sons pray an Assise, concerning the death of their Uncle. Upon the suit proceeding, the Eldest son may plead against his Father, and the youngest son against his Elder Brother, in the manner before mentioned. But it is evident, that the Father cannot by any means, consistently with the Law of the Realm, retain the Land in question, as he cannot at once be Lord and Heir. Nor, indeed, does the Law admit of Land so given again reverting to the Donor, when Homage has followed the Gift,[213] if the person to whom the Gift is made has any Heir, of his own body, or even more remote. Besides, Land which is thus given, like certain other Inheritances, naturally descends to the Heirs by the rule of succession, but never naturally ascends.[214] Thus the Plea, between the Father and the Eldest son, shall cease—but it shall proceed, between the Eldest son and the youngest, in the manner we have already described. [Footnote 213: Vide Reg. Majest. L. 2. c. 22. “But at this day,” observes Lord Hale, “the law is altered, and so it has been, for aught I can find, ever since 13 Ed. 1.” (Hale’s Hist. Com. Law, 229.)] [Footnote 214: _Descendit itaque Jus quasi ponderosum quid cadens deorsum._ (Bracton 62. b.) “This Rule,” observes Sir Wm. Blackstone, “so far as it is _affirmative_, and relates to lineal descents, is almost universally adopted by all nations;” “but the _negative_ branch, or total exclusion of Parents and all lineal Ancestors from succeeding to the Inheritance of their offspring, is peculiar to our own Laws, and such as have been derived from the same original.” (2 Com. 209.) The Reader will recal to mind the material qualification of this Rule, which, though it precludes the Father from taking as Heir to his Son, by an _immediate_ descent, permits him to take as Heir to his own Brother, who was Heir to the Son, by _collateral_ descent. (Hale’s Hist. Com. Law. 216. 336. 2 P. Wms. 613. Mr. Christian’s note to 2 Bl. Com. 212.) This appears to coincide with the Rule as qualified by Bracton; for, having laid it down, that an Inheritance never ascends the same way it descends, he proceeds, _a latere tamen ascendit alicui propter defectum heredum inferius provenientium_. (Bracton 62. b. See also Grand Norm. Custum. c. 25.) A different Rule, from that in the text, is laid down in the Laws of Henry the first. _Si quis sine liberis decesserit, pater aut mater ejus in hereditatem succedant, &c._ (LL. Hen. 1. c. 70.)]