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