Page 99 - index

Iiad decided the contrnv. An arrét of the latter Parlia-
iiient (1656) repoited by S~rfve, tom. II..c. 18. in citrd.
E'rom this report it appean that the gift )iras of a tiouse and
somc land, und wss iiot laigr in propuitiori to the prolier-
ty of the doiioi..
It would not be us~fiil ta rcfet fiiithcr to arréts upon the
qiiestiori of what nroiild be tlie valuc of a gift in rclntion t,o
t,he donoi's property to prcvent thc opcrat,ion of t,hc laiv of
revocetion.
Sallé, writing on tlir Ordinancc of 1731, thiis rcfcrs
to the old arrêts on thc ~ul~jccl.
"En ci~nsidbrant 1s jiirispsudeiicr des nsrGts, oii rie trouve
point non plus stat>ilitE, ni d'iinifoi~iiitb. Dans c~ii~
qui
ont proiionc6 la r6voitation dcs donations p:tr siiivnnancc
d'enfant, il y a des d~>~iat,ions qui 6tsieril dc la moitié,
d'autres di1 tiers, ct d';tutres d'une chose particiilièir".
Wlienevei relative iduc ha* been discussed, it ha$ not
been she7r.n that a ilomtion of lcss thnri thc sixth LI+, rncn-
tinnrd by Cujas, wa;: cver rrgnidcii as "inimrns;i".
The difficulty of defining, as a iulc for al1 cn.sre, thc pie-
of
cise proportioii Lhe gift should bcar to the ivholc prop~rt~y
the donor, shown i~i the diversity of opinion? and deci-
sions upon the subjert no doubt lrd ta Hie praivth of the
law which left thc revoeat>ilit.v of the kft to dql>rnd iipon
the circuinst~ances of each casc. RII~ especi~lly iipon cnnsi-
derntion of the question ivhcther it woiild havc bceii made
if the donor, at the tiriir of niaking it, had cont,eiiiplated
the birt,h of childien.
The ground of drcision jiist advei.tc<l tri ia found in an
arrét of t,hn Parlianient of Bordcaiix, of the 2nd of Junc,
1570, cited by Duplessis, holding that a giftfronialady of
10,000 livre3 wa.s rcvi~ïülile "moyennant qii'y ait apparence
que le donateur n'elit pas fait telle donation s'il cut pensi.
avoir des enfants "(iibi ante, decimo).
Tlie principle of this arrêt appenis to hgve liecn ssnctio-
ned by jiirists .md adopted II the Courts. N7ritcw, wrho