Bill - By the 1790s, in Virginia, both land and personal property would
descend to all the children of a descedant, not just the males.  Women,
however, if they were married or under age, were always represented by a
male (their husband or guardian).  The husbands who are accepting a
portion of the estate are doing so on behalf of their wives.  If a woman
was adult and single (unmarried or widowed), she could represent
herself, or she might appoint an attorney.

Grandchildren would receive exactly the same amount (per stirpes) as
their deceased parent could claim.  If the decedent had seven children,
each child would receive one seventh of the estate.  If one of those
children was deceased, leaving issue, that issue would receive one
seventh to be divided equally among them.

Your accounting of the possible heirs suggests that there were several
grandchildren under age and that someone of the claimants is accepting
shares on their behalf.   If that is so, there should be paperwork
appointing a guardian and explaining what share each grandchild is due.

Your calculation of the portions (7/16 + 7/16 + 2/16) does not lend
itself to any easy explanation of how many children or heirs there were.
More information is needed.  Have the sons-in-law bought up the shares
of the other siblings?  Perhaps there are quit claim deeds explaining
that.  You say the granchild received 1/8 or 2/16 of the estate.  If he
was the only child of his father, that would suggest that the original
decedent had eight children.  Of course, if any of the children died
without issue, before the settlement, their share would need to be
divided among the surviving heirs.

You say that the son sold his father's lands in 1800.  If he did that
without the consent of his siblings, that would suggest 
(1) there was a will or deed of gift giving him control of the land, 
or (2) the original decedent died intestate before 1785 when
primogeniture was abolished in Virginia.

Donald L. Wilson, Virginiana Librarian,
Ruth E. Lloyd Information Center
  for Genealogy and Local History (RELIC),
Prince William Public Library System,
Bull Run Regional Library,
8051 Ashton Avenue, Manassas, VA  20110-2892
703-792-4540   www.pwcgov.org/library/relic

-----Original message-----

Date:    Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:06:39 -0400
From:    Bill Davidson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Represntatives of the Heirs

I have a 1822 chancery court case where three men were listed as
"representatives of the heirs" for the remaining estate of a deceased
man (who had died in Middlesex Co., VA back in the 1790s).  Two of these
men were married to daughters of the deceased man, and the third man was
apparently a grandson of the deceased man (via a SON of the deceased man
who had ALSO died by 1822....the deceased man had previously left his
estate to this son).

The two men who had married daughters of the deceased man EACH received
7/16 of the estate, and the apparent grandson received only the
remaining 2/16 (i.e., 1/8) of the estate.  Was this "difference" just
because children (in this case, actually husbands of the children) were
thought to "deserve more" than a grandchild....or was there likely "more
to it" than that?  Also, was it common for such a chancery case in 1822
to totally exclude females in the distribution of an estate?

There were apparently also additional living grandchildren of the
deceased man in 1822, including both younger males and females (all of
the remaining male grandchildren, however, MAY have been under the age
21 in 1822...if that has any bearing on the distribution of such an
estate).  In addition, another daughter of the deceased man MIGHT have
still been alive in 1822 (per a "clue"), though her much older husband
(per some clues) had died in 1815 (so, IF she was, in fact, alive, was
she not mentioned, just because she was a female with no husband)?

Should I assume that the court expected the above three men to
distribute the estate, as they saw fit, among those other living family
members (or not necessarily)?  This case seemed to be "styled" as an
"agreement among the parties," so I was not too sure just how much the
court was "leaving up to them," versus just what the court was
"mandating."  Has anyone seen anything like this before?  Note: It is
POSSIBLE that this estate by 1822 consisted primarily (only?) of slaves.
The deceased man's land had already been sold to a "non-family member"
way back in 1800 by the son (who, as stated above, was also dead by
1822).  Comments?  Thanks.

**************************************************************

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