Good Morning - Claiming only that he was the only 'legal' son & heir 'at law', although he could have had others outside the law I suppose? Don't know the law at that time though? Kind Regards Roy LD Cox Family Historian Member of SA&NHS Member No. 1066 (And all That!) Web Site: www.coxresearcher.com/index.htm I also use www.archivecdbooks.com and www.localhistory.co.uk/ambra for my research -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Hillier Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [OEL] Only son and heir at law Dear Legal Eagles , Am I correct in thinking that , in English law as it applied in 1841, the claim by X "I am the only son and heir at law of Y " is legally compatible with the previous existence of brothers of X , sons of Y , who are now all dead ? I.e., am I correct that X is not necessarily claiming that Y never had any other sons ? TIA, Robert Hillier, Poole, Dorset ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.3/473 - Release Date: 12/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.3/473 - Release Date: 12/10/2006