Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:14:41 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
<ADF49DB3B2B0459C82DB236F42E07B35@PaulPC> |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A better question might be what determined why a servant or slave was NOT on an inventory. I have seen cases where if the slave (or servant) was bequeathed in the will, s/he isn’t listed on the inventory, and then again all slaves, bequeathed or not, listed in an inventory.
I am currently struggling with what seems to be a flagrant ignoring of the law in Lancaster County. From 1705 to 1776, slaves were considered to be real property and subject to laws of primogeniture and entail, yet I am finding a number of intestate estates dividing up the slaves anyway, among widows, sons and daughters. This in the 1760s. I can’t yet determine WHY this is being done in these estates.
Craig Kilby
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Paul Heinegg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> What determined whether a slave or servant would be listed in an inventory for a man who died testate in Virginia in 1740?
> Paul Heinegg
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|