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

Hi Robert You are correct in that one could not assume from this statement that there had not been other sons who had died, although in that case I would expect him to have declared that he was the "only surviving son of". So not that much help! Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hillier" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:05 AM 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

Would it not be to make sure that he was considered before any offspring of his dead brothers, i.e. if his dead elder brother's children may have been on the list of heirs. X is making sure that his claim as next heir is recognised before any grandchildren produced by his brothers. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hillier" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:05 AM 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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006 > >

In message <[email protected]>, Robert Hillier <[email protected]> writes >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 ? He is stating the current legal position, not the state of things as it was. Never confuse lawyers by giving them too much information. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society