Janet is quite correct, as usual.  No matter what had transpired before the intestate administration, 100% of children ever born to him would be named in any proceeding that had as a purpose any division of his assets.  Had there been a division of ANY of the personal property after the death but before the final order of distribution, such assets would have been dealt with by the court as though such a division had not taken place.   Moral?  Don't think that if you raid intestate GMaw's house that you will be able to keep what you carried away.   

All surviving kids would be "heirs" and take that share to which they were entitled by virtue of the "statutes of descent and distribution".  Had any children who had died before the death of this father had children of their own and then died before this intestate father, those grandkids would be entitled to equally divide those assets or money that would have gone to their dead parent, had that child not predeceased the intestate father.  Such gkids are said to take "per stirpes" (by the root of).   

The problem in this question is complicated only because the records are not extant.  If those are one day discovered, there will be found in that file an order by the court naming all the issue and the widow, and also what became of the assets or the dollar value of those assets, i.e., who got what.  Paul  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Janet Hunter 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  ....However, because he died intestate, my understanding of court procedures is
  that ALL of Branch's living children would be heirs and would have to be named
  in the chancery case, otherwise any who weren't named could later object.  The
  judge would insist on these, regardless of whether the older ones had already
  been given their portion.  Because he died intestate, the remaining 2/3 would
  legally be divided amongst them equally.  Note that this chancery court case
  does not indicate the division of the remaining 2/3rds of the land.  That
  (theoretically) should be in either a separate chancery case, and/or possibly a
  series of quit-claims of the interests of the children to another one of them
  (perhaps without compensation due to having received an earlier portion from
  Branch, but nevertheless it would have to be accounted for), or to other
  individuals.  The separate chancery case you will probably not find until the oldest
  child turns 21 years and demands his or her portion.

  Those are my thoughts, and I could be wrong.  I am curious about what the
  numbers are for Branch's household in 1820, and then for Susanna's in 1830.

  Best Regards,
  Janet (Baugh) Hunter

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