In a message dated 5/18/2002 10:52:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> But while we're on the subject of wills, I have another question regarding
> the man who dies intestate. In reading up on early colonial VA law, my
> impression is that if no will was written, the eldest son inherits the
> entire estate. Does this mean the widow inherits nothing, or does it mean
> the eldest son inherits the remaining 2/3 and the widow still inherits her
> 1/3?
>

Nel and all,

I am coming in a little late to this discussion, but I do have a case
comparable to the above that has a slightly different twist to it that has
always puzzled me.

John Baugh died intestate in 1761 in Chesterfield County Va, leaving a widow
and four children.  At the time of his death three of his children (my John
Jr., Creacher and Mary) were not of age, as shown by guardianship records,
and a fourth probably was or was married anyway, but she was a girl...so she
doesn't really count one could say.

In 1766, about when John Jr. came of age per court records, his mother Mary,
siblings Martha Dance (wife of John Dance), Creacher and Mary filed a
petition in Chancery Court against John Baugh, Jr., of which I have copies of
the court record.  Mary asked for and received her dower rights (slaves), and
the children received an equal portion of the remaining slaves with their
brother John, who apparently, now that he was of age had full possession of
the land and all the slaves.

In the petition, the plaintiffs say they have asked him nicely for their
portions and he has denied them.  In his response, he says that he doesn't
have the wherewithall to split up the estate and pay them their portions.

The records show the same gentlemen who conducted the inventory (two
Walthalls) again valuing the slaves, and then the mathematical calculations
to give the widow her 1/3 of that value and split the remainder up four ways
among the four children.  There are only three documents in the file, the
plaintiffs petition, John Jr's response, and then papers with the
calculations and division of the slaves.  This suggests to me that settlement
came quickly.

What I find interesting is that, as I understand the law then, while mother
Mary was entitled to her dower 1/3 there was no legal requirement that John
Baugh, Jr., had to divide the slaves up with his siblings, but it happened
anyway. (He did get the property).  I can only assume that he, having no
resources for a legal battle and being still young, bowed to family pressure
along the lines of --

If John Baugh Sr, had written a will, this is how he would have wanted it
done.  Therefore, in honor of the memory of your father, John Baugh Jr., you
should respect his wishes.

However, it seems to me that if not settled otherwise, a judge would have
only required John Baugh to give his mother her 1/3 of the slaves, and
allowed him to keep the rest for himself.  I think that there might have been
circumstances that precipated the need to legally set down, who was entitled
what portion of John Baugh Sr.'s estate -- such as the marriage of daughter
Mary possibly to John Martin.

Am I wrong?  FYI, this chancery case is very important for us descendants
because it names the family property ("Cathole"), which is described later in
deeds when John Baugh Jr. sells and moves to Powhatan Co (where he certainly
DOES have a will), etc., and can be traced back to the first Baughs in VA.
The case also identifies the fourth child, Martha Baugh Dance, who maybe
married a Forrester before John Dance.

Best Regards,
Janet (Baugh) Hunter

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