TNWEAKLE-L Archives

From: <>
Subject: [TNWEAKLE-L] Re: TNWEAKLE-D Digest V99 #132
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:16:34 EST

Hi Jean and list,
This is just what I like a lively discussion, and maybe I can learn something
new.
8-)

In a message dated 3/9/99 3:00:55 AM, you wrote:

> Edward, being the eldest male child, would have
>inherited by primogeniture everything in the estate not expressly
>willed to someone else.
Did the laws of primogeniture apply equally in all of the colonies?
Certainly after the Am Rev. the laws of primogeniture were revoked.

>I wouldn't expect
>Josiah to refer to land he got from his father as "conveyed to me".
"Conveyed" is a legal term that means deeded. That kind of language would be
used in a will. The early wills were usually drawn up by a law clerk. Unless
they were holographic.
As an example, one of my ancestors "conveyed" or deeded land to his eldest
son, and did not include any bequest to him in a will.
How else could Josiah prove legal title to any land unless he had a deed?

>Probably a relative of Josiah's wife or, less likely, mother. It's
>also possible the Pettus family was locally prominent but not really
>related at all. I agree, except for one tiny point. The maternal surname
was used as a given name in some families.

>and how
>did they fit into the situation and what impact would a possible
>relationship of these two men have upon the inheritance by Edward from his
>father, if it did, in fact, occur as the deed seems to imply?

Little impact, if any, I would think, because of the primogeniture
laws. I agree.

Ann

This thread:

• [TNWEAKLE-L] Re: TNWEAKLE-D Digest V99 #113 by <>

  • [TNWEAKLE-L] Re: TNWEAKLE-D Digest V99 #132 by <>