I have a 1822 chancery court case where three men were listed 
as "representatives of the heirs" for the remaining estate of a deceased man 
(who had died in Middlesex Co., VA back in the 1790s).  Two of these men 
were married to daughters of the deceased man, and the third man was 
apparently a grandson of the deceased man (via a SON of the deceased man 
who had ALSO died by 1822....the deceased man had previously left his 
estate to this son).

The two men who had married daughters of the deceased man EACH received 
7/16 of the estate, and the apparent grandson received only the remaining 
2/16 (i.e., 1/8) of the estate.  Was this "difference" just because children (in 
this case, actually husbands of the children) were thought to "deserve more" 
than a grandchild....or was there likely "more to it" than that?  Also, was it 
common for such a chancery case in 1822 to totally exclude females in the 
distribution of an estate?

There were apparently also additional living grandchildren of the deceased man 
in 1822, including both younger males and females (all of the remaining male 
grandchildren, however, MAY have been under the age 21 in 1822...if that has 
any bearing on the distribution of such an estate).  In addition, another 
daughter of the deceased man MIGHT have still been alive in 1822 (per 
a "clue"), though her much older husband (per some clues) had died in 1815 
(so, IF she was, in fact, alive, was she not mentioned, just because she was 
a female with no husband)?

Should I assume that the court expected the above three men to distribute 
the estate, as they saw fit, among those other living family members (or not 
necessarily)?  This case seemed to be "styled" as an "agreement among the 
parties," so I was not too sure just how much the court was "leaving up to 
them," versus just what the court was "mandating."  Has anyone seen 
anything like this before?  Note: It is POSSIBLE that this estate by 1822 
consisted primarily (only?) of slaves.  The deceased man's land had already 
been sold to a "non-family member" way back in 1800 by the son (who, as 
stated above, was also dead by 1822).  Comments?  Thanks.

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