Would it be a correct assumption that Howard Chism's death preceded Mahala's death? And that both died before the June 1860 lawsuit? And that they died childless? I am making these assumptions due to the lack of any Chism being named in the lawsuit mentioned in my previous posting. Also, the lack of any named guardian on the behalf of a Chism child. I am further making this assumption because it would seem that the Plaintiffs in the suit would be without standing to sue if there was a spouse or child living. It appears to me that Mahala's share would therefore go back to her siblings (and the deceased siblings' children) thus all the named Plaintiffs and Defendants. But I don't know Missouri law as of 1860.

Howard and Mahala Chism are listed as living in Morgan County in 1836. Someone should check the records there. Beth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth DuBois Russo" <elizabethrusso@attbi.com> To: <MOHOWARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:10 AM Subject: [MOHOWARD-L] Mahala and Howard Chism dates of death > Would it be a correct assumption that Howard Chism's death preceded Mahala's death? And that both died before the June 1860 lawsuit? And that they died childless? > > I am making these assumptions due to the lack of any Chism being named in the lawsuit mentioned in my previous posting. Also, the lack of any named guardian on the behalf of a Chism child. I am further making this assumption because it would seem that the Plaintiffs in the suit would be without standing to sue if there was a spouse or child living. It appears to me that Mahala's share would therefore go back to her siblings (and the deceased siblings' children) thus all the named Plaintiffs and Defendants. > > But I don't know Missouri law as of 1860. > >