本論文的主旨在研究民初大理院就妻對夫遺產之地位所著的判例。在傳統中國家庭財產法的架構下，妻充其量只能對於夫的遺產有管理權，而不能成為夫的繼承人，而管理權的內容還隨著自身是否改嫁、有沒有兒子、兒子是否成年，以及夫就遺產的管理有沒有其他的安排等情況而有不同。而到了引進西方法制，處於新舊交替時期的清末民初，這種情況是否因為社會變遷或法制演進而有所改變，值得進一步研究。而大理院判例提供了一個極佳的研究途徑。作為民初最高司法機關，以及在民初法制未備的背景環境之下而因緣際會地兼具立法機關的職能，大理院就妻對夫遺產之權利所作的判例，具有法制史與家庭史方面的雙重意義，一方面能藉以觀察法律上妻的財產權的演變軌跡，另一方面又可看出寡妻在家庭中的地位與處境。本文認為，大理院就妻對夫遺產權利之立場，基本上遵循傳統中國家庭財產法的原理，即認為妻僅有管理權，而不能成為夫的繼承人，但引進相關歐陸法制以擴充與捍衛妻的管理權，而其就此所作之判例，對於後來的第二次民律草案相關立法也有影響。大理院的判例巧妙結合新舊法制，提供當時社會環境的需求，雖然由於傳統中國法制與歐陸法制的差異，使其所建構之理論體系與歐陸法制有一部分產生明顯扞格，但整體而言仍是瑕不掩瑜。

This paper focuses on the judicial decisions of the Daliyuan about widows' rights and obligations toward legacy of husbands. According to the traditional Chinese family property law, a widow could at most be qualified to manage her husband's legacy rather than become his successor, and her ability to manage depended on the following conditions: whether she was remarried, whether she had sons, whether her sons become adults and whether her husband had made another arrangements about his legacy. It's worthy to examine if this situation changed with the reception of Western legal system or the social evolution in the early republican period, and the judicial decisions of the Daliyuan provide a wonderful approach for researching. The Daliyuan was theoretically the supreme court in the early republican period, but it
must also play the role of the legislator for the sake of the uncompleted
legal circumstances. Through its decisions about rights and obligations
of widows toward the legacy of husbands, we can observe the process of
the evolution of the widows’ property rights in the one hand and see the
roles and situations of widows in the families. We find that Daliyuan
obeyed the traditional Chinese Law and recognized that a widows could
only be qualified to manage her husband's legacy and couldn't become
her husband's successor in the on hand, but expanded and guarded her
rights to managing his husband's legacy by means of the relevant
Western legal institutes. Its decisions also influenced the second draft of
Civil Law in 1926. In the whole, the Daliyuan was competent in its era.