How do the rights of Dower and Curtsey play into this? If the slave/servant came into the “family” from the distaff side, they were not the property of the husband to disburse as he pleased is how I read that situation. That’s purely legalistic and how much personal agreement went into inventories to avoid “issues” is probably not only unknown but unknowable as they were so individualistic.

Lyle Browning, RPA


> On Nov 20, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Craig Kilby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html