APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2008-05 > 1211838189
From: "Elizabeth Shown Mills" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Tricky Deed detail
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:43:09 -0500
>So by the time of the deed, the dower rights of Israel Jr.'s wife had
terminated. The two deceased children both survived him, so their wills
would control the disposition of their shares. As the only child who
predeceased left no issue, predeceased children are not an issue. In
intestacy it is a straight matter of how many children survived him, which
if I understand correctly is 7. Thus each survivor gets 1/7th.
Barbara, there's another critical factor here. Israel Jr. had died 14 years
before this deed. Barring unusual circumstances, his estate would have been
divided then, with a 1/3 distribution to the widow and 2/3 to be divided
among the 7 children. If the estate had not been divided, then for Israel
III to leave 1/3 of his share of the land to his widow, by will, would mean
that he had to say, "I leave to my wife 1/3 of my FUTURE inheritance from
the estate of my parents after my mothr dies." (I'm assuming here that if
unusual wording of this type had existed, Polly would have noted it in her
recap of the circumstances.)
Twelve years later, the widow died. Then her 1/3 would be distributed among
the 7 children, the two children and the widow of Israel III, and the one
child of Marcy. The whole parcel owned by Israel Jr. would not have been
redivided neatly into 7 parts.
Not until the two sets of heirs executed the deeds of sale would the title
to the whole parcel be reassembled under the name of the purchaser.
>Of course this is ignoring the fact that the deed was instead divided into
44ths. For those of you who think Israel Jr. died intestate and that there
was a clerical error, this is a sensible solution: the error was in using
44ths instead of 42nds.
If "44" was an error and the real base should have been 42 parts, then you
would need another recalculation because the 35 parts in the one and 9 parts
in the other do add up to 44.
In my experience with problems of this type, any time a genealogist assumes
that an estate administrator, a judge, and a whole passel of adult heirs
made an error in calculating their shares, further research reveals the
error was in assuming they made an error!
>It should be pointed out that deeds in this part of the world were in
percentages, not decimals.
Sure, that's the way my New England ancestors did it, too. But how do you
get a percentage without a decimal? 1% = .01, right? 1/7 = .14285. Then
when you divide 6 acres and 40 rods by .14285, you get even more decimals.
|Re: [APG] Tricky Deed detail by "Elizabeth Shown Mills" <>|