Definition
"Derived from or through either of his [ancestors]" is a phrase of inheritance law, appearing principally in Maryland's colonial and early American statutes of descent, that describes the origin of a decedent's real or personal property as a criterion for determining who may inherit it. The phrase operates as a title-tracing rule: property does not simply pass to the nearest heir in the abstract, but passes to heirs whose relationship to the decedent runs through the same ancestral line from which the property itself originally came. A person claiming inheritance under such a statute must show that their connection to the decedent is derived from or through the same ancestor — paternal or maternal — who originally held or transmitted the property.
The practical effect is to keep inherited land within the bloodline that produced it. If a decedent received land from his father's line, heirs of the mother's line could be excluded; only those whose claim runs through the paternal ancestor from whom the land descended would qualify.
---
Common Confusion
This phrase is sometimes read as though it merely identifies biological ancestry in a general sense. It does not. The phrase is a term of limitation, not simply of description. It ties inheritance eligibility to the specific line of derivation of the property, not merely to the existence of a blood relationship with the decedent. A half-blood heir, or a maternal relative, might be entirely excluded even where they are the closest surviving relative, if the property derived from the opposing line.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase is a marker of a specific and historically narrow drafting tradition in American inheritance statutes, most prominently associated with Maryland. Researchers working with early American probate records, land title disputes, or appellate cases from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries will encounter it in precisely the context reflected in the Rapalje & Lawrence citation: 7 Cranch 458 (1813), where the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Maryland's statutory scheme of descent.
Several research traps are worth flagging:
First, the phrase does not appear in modern inheritance statutes. Contemporary uniform acts (including the Uniform Probate Code) abandoned ancestral property doctrines in favor of simple parentelic or degree-of-relationship systems. Researchers must not import modern intestacy logic when reading early Maryland or similarly structured colonial instruments.
Second, the phrase interacts with the broader doctrine of ancestral property — the common law principle that land descended from a particular line should return to that line rather than escheating or crossing to the opposite bloodline. This doctrine had largely eroded in American law by the mid-nineteenth century, making the phrase nearly invisible in post-Civil War sources. Its presence in a document is therefore a strong signal that the instrument or statute predates that erosion, or that a court is interpreting older law on its own historical terms.
Third, "either of his" refers specifically to the two ancestral lines — paternal and maternal — not to any broader category of relatives. Courts reading this phrase were tasked with assigning each piece of property to one line or the other before the inheritance question could even be reached. Title history, not family tree alone, controlled the analysis.
Researchers tracing chain of title in early Maryland land records, or analyzing appellate decisions that applied the Maryland statute of descent, should treat this phrase as a trigger to examine the full provenance of the subject property before assessing heirship.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence treats this phrase in connection with their entry on ANCESTORS under Maryland's statutes of descent, citing 7 Cranch 458, 468. The citation is to Finley v. Williams (1813), in which the Supreme Court construed the Maryland descent statute and grappled with exactly this question of line-of-derivation as a condition of inheritance eligibility.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is brief and does not elaborate on the doctrine's mechanics, limiting itself to the statutory and judicial reference. This is characteristic of their treatment of highly jurisdiction-specific statutory phrases: the dictionary signals the term's technical character and points to authoritative interpretation rather than synthesizing the doctrine independently. Researchers should treat the Cranch citation as the primary analytical source; the dictionary entry is best understood as a navigational pointer.
What the historical dictionaries as a class largely miss is the relationship between this phrase and the ancestral property canon more broadly. The phrase reflects a transatlantic inheritance from English common law rules — particularly the doctrine that land should ascend or pass along the line from which it came — but American jurisdictions diverged sharply in how long they retained that principle and how they codified it. Rapalje & Lawrence do not trace that divergence.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This phrase is primarily associated with Maryland's historical statutes of descent and has no direct equivalent in most other American jurisdictions. Some early state codes (Virginia, South Carolina) contained analogous ancestral property provisions with different phrasing. Researchers working outside Maryland should not assume the phrase or its doctrine applies without independent verification of the relevant state's statutory history.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Descent and Distribution; Ancestral Property; Intestate Succession.
---