In a message dated 5/5/2004 8:40:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> Assumption #2, Prior to the 1825 Court Order the older children had
> received their share of the estate as they married (for the daughters) or turned 21
> (for both sons and daughters).
>

Hello Everyone,

I agree with Beth that the older individuals counted in the 1820 census in
Branch Hatcher's household were probably not his children -- could be hers,
could be other relatives, could be friends/boarders/laborers.

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 thise, 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