Bill,
To answer your first question: Does the will of the older man state
something like:
"I leave everything to my son and, upon his death, to his descendants."
If so, then the older man's probate file cannot be closed until after his
son dies and the property is divided among the younger man's heirs.
Best regards,
Mary Beth Dalton
Williamsburg, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Davidson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: reliable sources, PLUS a New Question
My last message to this board...from a day or two ago...was apparently not
added, for whatever reason (and I saw where someone else just said that the
same thing happened to him or her). I was recommending DNA testing as a
way to help prove or disprove "conventional data." I would literally not
take a million dollars for what I learned from my own DNA test, as well as
the test on my mother's male cousin.
Now for my question. I have what appears to be a transcription of what is
shown as a "chancery decree" from 1822. Is this different from a true
"chancery court case," or is this simply the "final outcome" of a chancery
court case? This may not be correct, but this almost SEEMS to me to have
been where three men came into court in full agreement with one another, but
where they simply wanted their "plan" to divide the estate of one of their
ancestors to be "formally approved and documented" by the court. In this
"decree," three heirs of a deceased man were shown as "representatives of
the heirs" of that deceased man, but the estate that was being divided was
actually from the deceased FATHER of that deceased man (this remaining
estate MAY of consisted of slaves only). Each of these three
"representatives of the heirs" was to be given a a specific percentage of
the estate (7/16, 7/16 and 1/8), and I can only assume that the stated
percentages were based on the total number of heirs for whom each
"represenatative" was responsible. One of these "representatives" was the
husband of a daughter of the older deceased man, another "representatative"
was the husband of a daughter of the younger deceased man and the third
representative was a son of the younger deceased man.
Note: When the older deceased man died, he left everything to his son (i.e.,
the younger deceased man), so I don't understand why the "decree" was
addressing the estate of the older deceased man, yet referred to the
"representatives" as being "representatives of the heirs" of the younger
deceased man. Why was the older deceased man even mentioned, if he had left
everything to his son in his will back in 1795?
I have been unable to find the above document in the chancery court case
records. This apparent transcription was found at the Virginia Historical
Society in the notes left there by the well-known genealogist George
Harrison Stanford King (I think his name was).
Comments?
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
