[email protected] wrote: > Laws of intestacy vary with time and place and are very intricate, > as you know. They varied by state / colony / province. When > replying to your posting, I was thinking of the situation where > possibly John Crow died intestate but had no children. (I wasn't > considering the very early date.) > > Regarding land ascending lineally through laws of intestacy, most > definitely it does occur. Where there were no children, and after > the widow's dower, frequently intestacy laws state that the estate > was to be distributed: > > "equally to the next of kin of the intestate of equal degree and > those who represent them" > > With that in mind, here in Nova Scotia (mind you, after 1758), the > above was applied as follows: > > That either of the intestate's parents would take to the exclusion > of his siblings, which was later modified by directing that if the > intestate's father predeceased him, the mother shared equally with > the intestate's siblings and their representatives. etc. That's undoubtedly a statute that changed the English common law that all the English colonies in North America started with. Under the common law rules of intestacy, property never lineally ascended. When this rule was changed (which all states almost certainly have changed) it was changed by statute. I assume that Nova Scotia also followed the English common law, although I suppose that it's possible it followed Scottish law that was different. In that case, if Nova Scotia law provided that property could lineally ascend, it's because a law was enacted that changed the common law rule. The best known common law intestacy rule that was changed was primogeniture, which all or nearly all US states had effectively abolish through legislation by the years shortly after the Revolutionary War (although a few colonies had abolished it before then). > For degrees of consanguinity, see: > http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/22/title22sec2843-A.html > > Regarding the land in question, is there no way you can determine > how the neighbor Jeremiah Risling or even Richard Risling himself, > obtained their land (other than John Crow's land)? I quoted the deed to Jeremiah Risley that I believe is the deed whereby he got the land that is mentioned in the Samuel Risley deed. The deeds don't have meets & bounds descriptions, and the one to Jeremiah Risley only has one dimension ( forty-three rods in width), and so the boundaries of the land are determined by the lines of the abutting property owners and, in one case, a path. In any event, the boundary "butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" in the Samuel Risley deed undoubtedly refers to land that Jeremiah Risley was deeded. Another reason for concluding that the abutting land of Jeremiah Risley that was being referred to is the same land that he had been deeded 3 days earlier by Richard Risley is that the need to place the description "as may appear by a deed from his father" suggests that the boundaries of Jeremiah's land were not yet well known. > I note there is "common or undivided land" to the east > of Samuel Risling, suggesting an inheritance: either testate or > intestate. Possibly a Risling? Or another relative? "Common or undivided land" refers to land that had been acquired by the Hartford proprietors, but had not yet been been divided among them. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>