Ed You are right, only the eldest son has the entailed estate in this case. The other sons have merely life estates, and at their death to the eldest male heir of the father. I agree that OFTEN the laws of entail and primogeniture were ignored and/or forgotten. The same goes for "leases for lives." But I have studied one case in great detail for land in Middlesex County. This case involved Thomas Kidd who died in, oh say 1686 leaving only two sons. To the eldest son Thomas he left one of his patents "to him and his heirs forever." To the younger son William he left the other patent. Period. No language of "to him and his heirs forever." Well, time goes on, descendants of William sell parts of it, keep others. Thomas-2 Kidd goes on to have Thomas-3 and Thomas-3 has Thomas-4. Suddenly, out of nowhere a long long time later, Thomas-4, supposedly as a resident of Edgecombe County, North Carolina, gives one William Upshaw Davis a Power of Attorney to initiate actions to clear his titles. This was, as you suggest, done at the State Court level. (I say he was supposedly of Edgecombe County, NC because other than this POA he left nay shred of evidence of his ever being there) Davis proceeds to this record this court order in Essex County (not in Middlesex where the land was), and proceeds to have it all surveyed and he promptly resells it back to the very same people who THOUGHT they already owned it. And these were not deeds of gifts! Oh, those clever lawyers. I've sent this link before but now is a good time to send it again. It is called Bob's Genealogy Cabinet and does a very good job of explaining all sorts of colonial laws, including one pertaining to land and inheritance in general. I disagree with a few things he says (in particular that if you see a woman signing as a witness to a will or a deed it means she was single, and this is patently NOT TRUE.) Here is the link: http://www.genfiles.com/ I strongly recommend if you have not saved this site to favorite places, you do so now. Craig On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Edward White wrote: > would differ on whether an estate tail would be created. "I give my real > estate to A" at common law gives A a life estate. The remainder would then > pass to the heirs of A. probably intestate and thus winding up as you said > in the eldest. A true estate in tail is: I give Blackacre to my son John > and the heirs male of his body. Thus you have both words of purchase and > words of limitation.