Читать книгу The History and Poetry of Finger-rings онлайн

44 страница из 58

§ 15. The author deems it as well to refer to the law, in relation to rings. In common parlance, we consider precious stones to be jewels; but rings of gold will pass by that word. In the time of Queen Elizabeth, the Earl of Northumberland bequeathed by his will his jewels to his wife, and died possessed of a collar of S’s, and of a garter of gold, and of a button annexed to his bonnet, and also many other buttons of gold and precious stones annexed to his robes, and of many chains, bracelets and rings of gold and precious stones.[85] The question was, whether all these would pass by the devise under the name of jewels? It was resolved by the justices, that the garter and collar of S’s did not pass, because they were not properly jewels, but ensigns of power and state; and that the buckle of his bonnet and the button did not pass, because they were annexed to his robes, and were no jewels. But, for the other chains, bracelets and tings, they passed under the bequest of jewels.

Persons who desire to leave specific rings to friends should designate them; for, otherwise, the particular article will not pass. Thus, “I give a diamond ring,” is what is called a general legacy, which may be fulfilled by the delivery of any ring of that kind; while “I give the diamond ring presented to me by A,” is a specific legacy, which can only be satisfied by the delivery of the specified subject.[86] A legacy of £50 for a ring is but a money legacy; it fastens upon no specific ring, and carries interest like other money bequests.[87]