^{page 105 note 2} Coker, G. B. A., Family Property among the Yorubas; Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1958; PP. xxiii + 314; price 45/-.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} Principally in Abeokuta, Ijebu Ode, Ondo, Ado Ekiti and Iwo.

^{page 105 note 4} Coker, op. cit. p. 113 n.

^{page 106 note 1} In Adedoyin v. Simeon, and ors. 9 N.L.R. 76, two Lagos chiefs and the Court interpreter gave evidence of customary laws which were held valid throughout Yoruba country.

^{page 106 note 2} Morris, R. B., “Freehold”, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 1949, Vol. 6, p. 462.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 3} As an anthropologist I should prefer to use terms such as lineage, etc.; but family, albeit a term lacking in precision, is invariably used in the courts and by literate Yoruba.

^{page 106 note 4} I have discussed the Yoruba rules of succession in an article in a recent issue of this journal ([1959] J.A.L. 7).

^{page 108 note 1} An admirable summary is to be found in Homans, G. C., “Partible Inheritance”, Economic History Review VIII 1937–1938 pp. 48–56.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} Meek, C. K., Land Tenure and Land Administration in Nigeria and the Cameroons, 1957, p. 129. The term ‘corporation’ might be better avoided lest it be confused with the narrow use of the word in English law.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 1} Subuola Alake and others v. Bisi Pratt and others, 15 W.A.C.A. 20. In this case it was held that the defendants, the children of Dudley Coker, deceased, by a Christian marriage and two of the plaintiffs, children by a loose union entered upon after the death of the defendant's mother, were all entitled to share the property of their late father. The nature of the marriage or unions contracted was not relevant to the issue. One point which remains undecided by the High Courts is whether a man can, by acknowledgment, legitimise a child born to a woman other than the wife married to him under the Marriage Ordinance, during the term of this marriage. The situation is a modern one but according to most Yoruba informants a man could so confer legitimacy on a child. The combination of English marriage law and customary law of legitimacy produces considerable confusion.

^{page 109 note 2} See my article cited in note above, ([1959] J.A.L. 7). In defining the corporate lineage Gluckman states “The group is not a collection of its members but is an organisation of its parts”.

^{page 109 note 1} Some specific rights of management held by family members were established by the High Court in the celebrated case Lewis v. Bankole, 7 N.L.R. 82.

^{page 110 note 1} When land is scarce it is sometimes divided among the constituent segments of the family, members of each of which have general and specific usufructuary rights within their own portion; but rights of alienation remain with the whole family.

^{page 111 note 1} C. K. Meek, op. cit.; p. 129.

^{page 112 note 1} Cook, W. W., “Ownership and Possession”, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1949 vol. II, p. 521.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 2} Many rights traditionally exercised by the obas and chiefs are now the subject of local government bye-laws; the respective jurisdiction of the oba and chiefs and the local government council in such matters has not been clearly defined. The Oba and his senior chiefs are almost invariably members of the council and no conflict between them over such issues seems to have become public.

^{page 113 note 1} Gluckman, M., The Judicial Process among the Barotse 0f Northern Rhodesia, 1955, p. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 1} See Coker, op. cit., pp. 81–2.