VYAWASTHA'-IDARPANA. 527 In like manner, whatever the father had promised, whatever he had deposited, mortgaged, or whatever price he did not pay after purchasing (a thing,) all these should be discharged by the son. (ante 491). For, “ a promise made in words, but not performed in deed, is a delt (of conscience) both in this world and in the next. He who gives not what he has promised, and he who takes what he has given, sinks to various regions of torment, and spring again to birth from the womb of some brúto animal”--NA?ADA. “What a man has promised, in health or in sickness, for a religious Éstrpose, must be given; and if he die without giving it, his son shall doubtless be compelled to deliver it.”—KATYAYANA. Coleb. Dig. vol. I. pp. 299–307. However, “The sons are not compellable to pay sums due by their father for spirituous liquors, for losses at play, for promis. made without any consideration or under the influence of lust or wrath”; or sums for which he was a surety, or a fine, or a toll, or the balance of either.”—VRIHASPATI. “Money due by a surety, a commercial demand, a toll, the price of spirituous liquors, a loss at play, and a fine, shall not involve the sons (of the debtor)”—GotAsia. “Neither a fine, nor a toll, nor the balance due for either, shall be (necessarily ) paid by the son of the debtor ; nor any debt for a cause repugnant to good morals.”—VYASA. “A son need not pay in this world money due by his father for spirituous liquors, for lustful pleasures, for losses at play; nor what remains unpaid of a fine or toll; nor any thing idly promised.”— JAGNYAVALKYA. Coleb. Tig. vol. I. pp. 312–318. But in this country it is now a settled point that," parent is impracticable, the son shall pay the debt of his father, though living, as if he were dead. The creditor necd not wait twenty years, Coleb. Dig. vol. I. p. 285,
- What a man has promised, with or without a writing, to give to a woman who had another husband before, let the judge consider as a debt contracted under the influence of lust. But what has been promised to gratify resentment by hurting (another) or destroying his器 let the judge consider as (a debt) incurred under the influence of wrath.”—KATYAGANA, Coleb, Dig. vol. I, p. 316.
