1. at the instant of her brother's death. 292 Hardwicke L.C. held that "it will make no material difference" that she was a posthumous child. 293 According to Hardwicke L.C. "the plaintiff was in ventre sa mere at the time of her brother's death, and consequently a person in rerum natura, so that both by the rules of the common and civil law, she was;But because the brother died before the posthumous daughter's birth, the question was whether she was within this statute although she was not
2. 295 That interpretation would make the statement irreconcilable with the view taken in the criminal law. 296 And it is unclear how to reconcile it with Hardwicke L.C.'s statement just before that posthumous children are not "in esse at the intestate's death;On one plausible interpretation, this statement implies that being in the womb is sufficient for being a person in rerum natura, which
3. Wallis, George (1740–1802)
4. Wallis, George (1740–1802)