History of the earldoms of Strathern, Monteith, and Airth

STRATHERN, MONTEITH, AND AIRTH. 223
begins with a reference to the Charter which Proceedings
_ IN THE House
gave it to the Earl of Monteith and * his heirs ;' of lords.
T»/r 11- A->i • • 1 -n/r 13tll Aug. 1839.
it says : — * Melhsse Comiti de Montethe et he-
redes SLiis ; ' but if a particular Charter is referred L^^rd^Advoca^te,
to, and a person is said to hold by that Charter
certain lands or dignities to himself ' et heredes
suis,' the ' heredibus suis' cannot be taken to
refer to a different class of heirs than those ex-
pressed in the Charter that grant was made by',
the Crown describing the grantee as holding to
himself and ' his heirs.' The question then
remains, whether those words included ' heirs
general,' or whether the Charters referred to
show they were a particular class of heirs, — a
more limited class of heirs. If the Charter of
1428, in creating the Earldom of Monteith, re-
1 Admitting the correctness of this statement as a general
proposition, there are, nevertheless, several circumstances
which render it inapplicable to the present Case. In the
first place, there is no evidence that the Charter referred to
in the Patent of 1633 was the Charter of the lands of Craynis.
Secondly, the recital that the grantee William Earl of Mon-
teith AA'as undoubted heir of line and succession of Earl
Malise, in preference to describing him (as was also the
fact) as heir male of that personage, clearly shows the
belief of the Crown that the Earldom of Monteith was
destined to heirs of line, and not to heirs male : and, thirdly,
the constant repetition of the word Jieirs., without once using
the term heirs male, shows, beyond dispute, the class of heirs
which was in the mind of the fraraer of the instrument. See
the remarks on this subject in a former part of the volume,
pp. 83. et seq. ; and particularly in pp. 101 — 105.