In a message dated 7/14/2006 11:27:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

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



Joanne and all,

This is an interesting question in that it makes me wonder whether, even
after the abolishment of primogeniture, if the deceased died before
primogeniture was abolished, would the laws of primogeniture apply to his estate
settlement.

For hypothetical example, it is possible that the 1800 case cited, the man
suing as "the heir-at-law" was born before primogeniture was abolished but just
 came of age (or decided to get his hands on the property), and the
individual  whose estate he is suing died also before it was abolished.

In this example, if the man suing had several siblings, would  primogeniture
still apply in estate settlement even in 1800.

Always another question..

Best Regards, Janet Hunter



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