Rather, the first implication follows from the conventional meaning of this wording, while the second follows from the condition taken as a whole or from the opening statement. How much more so when matters are not as supposed!

If it is said, “This excludes that possibility in this case, even though it does not exclude it in another,” we reply: This would hold only if the case mentioned did not restrict the unrestricted wording. His statement, “Whoever among them dies,” is unrestricted, but he has restricted it by saying, “leaving no child.” In such a construction, one cannot say, “He mentioned one case and left another unaddressed,” unless the statement stands independently, unconnected to anything else. When it is connected to another statement, however, it becomes a restriction upon that preceding statement.

The phrase “leaving no child” is also construed as a circumstantial qualifier in the accusative. A circumstantial qualifier is descriptive, and a description restricts the scope. It is therefore as though he said, “On condition that whoever dies in this state, his share shall pass to the members of his tier”; or, “The deceased’s share shall pass to the members of his tier on condition that he leaves no child.” It is self-evident that a transfer made conditional upon a particular qualification cannot be affirmed in the absence of that qualification.

Thus, “leaving no child” describes the circumstances of the deceased’s death. The transfer, when the deceased dies in this state, is a qualification of the endowment. When an endowment has a qualification, and that qualification is itself further qualified, the endowment cannot be affirmed except where both the qualification and its further qualification are present. Thus, it cannot be an endowment for the children, then their children, except on condition that the deceased’s share passes to the members of his tier.