The next law is unintelligible at present, owing to the _lacunae_, and doubtful readings of the text, which, moreover, is only given in transcription. It appears to concern a woman and her interests in a field or plantation and the trees in it, and its produce. (M213) Law C. [Col. III. 3-15.] A man has given his daughter to a freeborn man and the father has fixed something in a deed and given to his son, and the first-named has fixed a marriage-portion for his daughter and they have mutually executed deeds of settlement. They shall not alter their deeds. The father shall give in full the settlement (_nuṣurru_), which he had promised his son by deed, to the father-in-law, and deliver it. The father here named appears to be the father of the bridegroom. He must make a settlement on his son, as well as the father of the bride on his daughter. The point of the law seems to be that these settlements on the part of the parents to the young couple are irrevocable. No subsequent engagements entered into can affect them. This settlement by the bridegroom’s father on his son, which he has to pay over to the bride’s father, evidently takes the place of the _terḫatu_, or “bride-price” of the Code. The obligation of a father to find his son the means for a bride-price appears in the Code, § 166; but there is no section which answers directly to this law. The marriage-portion is now _nudunnu_, in the Code it was _šeriktu_, while _nudunnu_ was the husband’s gift to the wife. (M214) Law D. [Col. III. 16-22.] When the father [of the bridegroom] has had his wife taken away by fate, has taken to himself a second wife, and she has borne him sons, the sons of the second wife shall take a third of his property remaining. This appears as part of the same section as Law C, and is enacted again in Law K, page 69. It is not easy to see why it is here, except to make plain that settlements on marriages of the sons of the first family are a first charge on the father’s property. The second family takes a third, not of all the father once had, but of what is left after these gifts by deed have been taken out. The married sons of the first family are not disinherited by virtue of these gifts, but take among them two-thirds of what is left. This is against the Code, § 167. (M215) Law E. [Col. III. 23-31.] A man who has promised a marriage-portion to his daughter, or has written her a deed of gift, and afterward his means have diminished, shall give to his daughter a marriage-portion according to his means that are left. Father-in-law and son-in-law shall not quarrel one with the other. Dr. Peiser has shown that the marriage-portion was often held back a long time. Suits were brought to recover it from fathers-in-law. There is no corresponding section in the Code. (M216) Law F. [Col. III. 32-37.]