Ms. Joanne. In Old England, that term would quite usually mean that of all potential heirs "...the" heir at Law...." would be that person who stands first in line to inherit, whether that person is male or female.  You may NOT infer that it was the first son or, for that matter, that the person even was a male.

In the colonies the term was not so precisely used, and the term "a heir at law" did not preclude other heirs as claimants within that category.  So, while the term "the heir at law" may be taken to mean the sole heir, I think it not safe to assume the accuracy and truth of that.

Similarly, notice that the term "heirs", when precisely used, meant the totality of persons taking property through an intestate estate.  Those named in a will (testate) were legatees, not heirs.  They were gaining a "legacy".
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: qvarizona
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:26 AM
  Subject: [VA-ROOTS] Heir at law


  Friends,

    In 1800 Virginia, did a man  suing an estate as "the heir-at-law"  mean he must have been  the oldest son, or is the definition broader than that?

    Joanne



--
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3841 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

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