One possibility is that his land passed by operation of law outside of the estate. For example, if he held the land in fee tail or if he owned the land as a life estate rather than fee simple. I believe in these cases it would not be included in his "estate" because it would not pass by operation of the intestacy laws or by his will, but by the terms of the original document by which he acquired his title. That is only a guess. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sharon Sheldon [mailto:slsheldon@earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 3:05 PM > To: PACHESTE-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PACHESTE] "Yeoman" > > > Hello All, > It's my understanding that the above referenced term meant > you owned your > land. So...if I have an ancestor who dies intestate and they > inventory and > give value to everything else in the place, why doesn't the > land come into > play? There are references to the value of the crops in the > ground but > nothing about his 45 acres or house and barn. I thought > perhaps it might be > due to the fact that his wife inherited their land from her > father, but > wouldn't that land still end up being considered property of > the husband? > Help! }:-) > Sharon in No. VA > > ______________________________ >

Hello, Since I've never found anything to even show the title of this land going TO Ruth and James, anything is possible, I guess. Like everyone else, I firmly believe the clues to my entire lineage lie in a courthouse box, under a layer of dust, just waiting for me to go on site and find it! :) Thanks to everyone for your comments on this situation. I am learning plenty! Sharon in No. VA -----Original Message----- : From: Jon Althouse [mailto:jalthouse@bfaz.org]