This well-known enactment need not detain us further, since in the Roman-Dutch Colonies it has either never been received or been repealed by statute.[1]
Another rule relating to remarriage is that which imposes upon the surviving parent, before contracting another marriage, the duty of paying or securing to the minor children of the first marriage the shares due to them out of the estate of the deceased.[2] By the Civil Law the penalty for remarrying in breach of this rule was the forfeiture by the defaulting spouse of any property accruing to him or her from the estate of the deceased.Administration of Estates Act, 1913, sec. 56. (3) </ref> In South Africa the defaulting spouse forfeits his or her share in the joint estate for the benefit of the minor children, besides incurring a statutory penalty of fine or imprisonment.[3]
CHAPTER VI
UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND. PRODIGALITY
Unsoundedness of mind. In an earlier chapter we saw that curators dative are appointed by the Court for insane persons, and (after interdiction) for prodigals. It is tempting to speak of unsoundness of mind as constituting a status; but it would not be correct to do so, for mental unsoundness is
not necessarily permanent or constant, and the question which must be answered is not, 'Has the man been declared mad?' but, 'Was he, in fact, incapable of understanding- ↑ Repealed in the Cape Province by Act 26 of 1873, sec. 2 ; in the Transvaal by Procl. 28 of 1902, sec. 127 ; in the Free State by the Law Book of 1901, chap, xcii, sec. 1 ; in Natal by Laws No. 22, 1863, sec.3; No. 17, 1871, sec. 1 ; No. 7, 1885, sec. 3 ; in British Guiana by Ord. No. 12 of 1906, sec. 10. In Ceylon the lex hac edictali has, apparently, never been recognized.
- ↑ Gr. 1. 9. 6-7 ; Voet, 23. 2. 100-1 ; V. d. K. Th. 142 ff. ; Administration of Estates Act, 1913, sec. 56.
- ↑ Voet, 23. 2. 101 : Binubus aut binuba amittat proprietatem relictorum sibi a priore conjuge cessuram aequaliter liberis prioris thori . . . solumque retineat usumfructum, quamdiu superstes fuerit.
