Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:03:31 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Nope, I can not, Renee, however, the question posed was not as to matters of intestate death. If it had been so, my view would be very different. Still, though, were there a question properly posed as to WHO all the children of a intestate decedent were, I believe that evidence offered by way of words spoken and actions taken by the alleged father would be admissible in proving "who" all were in that category. Would you agree there? And, do you suggest that identified "bastards" could not inherit during the years 1600-1800 ? Thanks. Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Renee Dauven
....Perhaps I misunderstood the question. I thought that we were talking
about the law and customs in the 1700's and not the law and customs of
today. Certainly in most jurisdictions today that would probably be the
case.
However, it wasn't the case then. Then the phrase would have been
interpreted to mean "legally begotten" children which was accomplished
in only one of two ways: by birth within marriage or by legal adoption.
The following source is very general but it might be helpful.
....
Paul, can you illustrate a case in which an alleviate child was
granted legal standing as an heir in an intestate estate probate?
Renee L. Dauven
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
|
|