I came across this term in an article today. Googling isn’t giving me a lot of help. I assume it means child of the first marriage?
But one of the Google results (a law journal from 1901) has this sentence: “As the Acting District Judge observes, the words “a share” are used, and not shares in the instrument, indicating an intention to cut the property in two and give the child of the first bed one-half and the children of the other bed the other half. That intention conforms to the stirped division by our Common Law between children of different beds of property on intestacy.” [Italics in original]
This has to do with inheritance in the absence of a will?
Why “child” of the first bed? Can there be “children” of the first bed? If there are multiple children in the first marriage, how are they accounted for?
refers to “each child of the first bed” so I assume there can be more than one. My only two guesses are child of a first marriage or more likely legitimate children.
The case in question was in reference to TIAGARAJA et al. v. TAMBYAH. D. C, Colombo, 10,759. Colombo being the capital of Ceylon (Now Sri Lamka) and then a British colony.
Given that the lawyers and the clerks would quite possibly not have English as a first language, is it possible that “child of the first bed” is a mistranslation?
I would guess that “children of the first bed” are the legitimate heirs of the man, and children from “other” beds are illegitimate. (but might nonetheless be included in a will.)
Not necessarily: they could simply be children of the first wife, whether that “first” is by order in time (which may not require a monogamous sequence) or by other reason of primacy. All children would be legitimate, but the one from the principal wife is the main heir; it can even happen that having your son be named heir is what makes you the principal wife. One of the problems with polygyny is precisely that the division of property can get pretty bloody.