There was and I believe still is an obscure law on the books in Virginia that while a woman's children are automatically her heirs - a man's children are NOT automatically his heirs... I have heard that this was to protect an estate from any claims of illegitimate children a man may have. I don't know about "adopted" children though. On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Bill Davidson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I have a case where a "Smith infant/toddler" was taken-in by John and > Mary (Bennett) Brown around 1817-1820 in Middlesex Co., VA. DNA > testing on a living male descendant shows that this infant/toddler was > a "biological Smith" who was a member of the same overall Smith > family as the John Smith who married Sarah Waller (daughter of Judge > Benjamin Waller of Williamsburg) around 1788. This child was named > and reared as Smith W. BROWN, however, by his new "Brown > guardians." > > It appears that John Smith and Sarah Waller MAY very well have been > the parents of this child, and it appears that Mrs. Sarah (Waller) > Smith was dead by at least the 1820 census (she MAY have died as a > result of having the referenced child...she would have been about the > age of 50 in 1817). If Smith W. Brown was, in fact, a child of John and > Sarah (Waller) Smith, it appears that the widower John Smith gave this > son to his "new Brown guardians" while John Smith was still alive > (though John Smith was probably in ill health at the time, and perhaps > unable to care for an infant son, since John Smith was also dead by at > least 1822). > > Note: Mrs. Mary (Bennett) Brown was also a descendant of the > referenced overall Smith family (but out of a different "branch" of that > family), so she and her husband John Brown were "viable candidates" to > have taken-in a Smith child. > > In 1822, there was a chancery court case where the "representatives of > the heirs of John Smith" were to divide the "estate of Maurice Smith" > (Maurice Smith was the father of John Smith, and when Maurice Smith > died back in 1795, he left his entire estate to his only son John > Smith...though John Smith had three sisters). This 1822 chancery case > distributed the remaining estate of Maurice Smith (which MAY have > been slaves only, but I am not sure about that) to > three "representatives of the heirs of John Smith." The division was not > equal....i.e., it was not simply 33 1/3 to each of these > three "representatives"...so the percentage that each "representative" > was to receive MAY have been dependent on all of the younger (and > unnamed) family members in each of these "three branches of the > Smith family." > > Note: I have seen what appears to be only a SUMMARY of the > referenced chancery case (this "summary" was found in the papers of > George H. S. King at the Virginia Historical Society). I need to read the > entire/full court case, but I will have to go to the Middlesex courthouse > to do it, since the Middlesex chancery cases available at the LOVa stop > in 1820...and I need the cases from 1822. > > The three people listed as "representatives of the heirs of John Smith" > were: 1) the husband of one of John Smith's living sisters, 2) the > husband of one of John Smith's own daughters, and 3) the only adult > son of John Smith in 1822 (James Smith). This excluded any mention of > the Brown family, who had taken-in Smith W. "Brown." Is this > particularly surprising, or do guardians of a child...and/or the child > himself/herself...forfeit any "direct/automatic" benefit from the > distribution of an estate from the child's "original/biological family?" > > What I am trying to determine, of course, is whether or not the > exclusion of Smith W. Brown and/or his "Brown guardians" in the above > chancery case necessarily means that Smith W. Brown was NOT a son > of John Smith and Sarah Waller after all. It appears that the "heirs of > John Smith" were to divided the estate of John Smith's FATHER Maurice > Smith....versus dividing the estate of John Smith himself....and I can't > help but wonder if that MIGHT be a "significant detail" in all of this. > > Comments on the above? Thanks. > > 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