Hello Everyone, I'm going through a sheaf of papers I collected at the NC State Archives (heaven) on my Landing/Landen/Harrell families in Gates County. In Administrator Abraham Cross' August 1821 cash distribution (ca $30 each) for the estate of James Landen, who died intestate early 1820, the first heir listed was Mills Landens (with no notation of deceased or estate of), then followed his brothers and sisters. For numerous reasons I won't bore you with I was positive that this was my 4g grandfather Mills who died in 1802 leaving orphan Elizabeth, but I had been under the impression that when names are listed at settlement they are only those of LIVING heirs, and I expected to find Elizabeth listed. She was the only child. Fortunately, I also have Elizabeth Landing's guardian papers, and at the final settlement of her account by John Vann in February 1841, after she is married to Michael Marsh, there is blessedly a notation that she is still due ca $30 plus interest from Abram Cross, administrator of dec'd Landen. They both signed the final settlement saying she had received the cash on hand, negro woman Sarah who now had four children (estate paid for midwives) and title to her father's land, which they promptly sold. So, in this instant in Gates Co. NC I found a listing, with no qualification, of a deceased son. Now I know Paul will say this wasn't the way it was supposed to be done, but my experience, growing by the day, is that there is a tendency to be more casual in listing names in settlement papers back then (only middle names if used, nicknames, etc.), although not as bad as in estate sale records, etc. I thought I would point this out for any of you who might have eliminated prospective ancestors because of the listing of the dead in an estate distribution that you might have assumed were still living, and therefore crossed that person who's estate was being settled off your list. Secondarily, it is a reason to try to get your hands on the guardian papers as well, since they would indicate any moneys that came to the orphan via other estates -- as well as find out how much money your female ancestors spent on calico, shoes, coats and ribbons (lots of those) every year. Now maybe this is very common and only the first time I have run across it. I am curious if others have had the experience. I believe that there is a similar incident in listing a Lemuel Harrell as receiving his part of the estate as an heir of Thomas Harrell in 1784, when he was also dead. I have a secondary question. I have not been able to determine when her stepfather Uriah Eure or mother Mary Harrell died, as I believe she was living with them at least in 1809, but from 1814 (but not before) to 1821 there is an expense titled "board for orphan". I would assume this would be a general expenses payment from the estate for her food, etc. where-ever she was living, but could it instead indicate that she was not living with her mother and stepfather? Best Regards, Janet Hunter

#1: Nope, Ms. Janet, I won't say that only the living received shares in intestate administrations. Indeed, a deceased son would be entirely entitled to his equal portion, just as he would if he were alive, only it would received by him "per stirpes". It may well be - as I have seen before - that the scrivener/reporter, through oversight or otherwise, simply did not add that Latin modifier. Therein, and not by reason of any error by the court as to heirs, is found the laxity in the few instances of which I have knowledge. #2 As to the "step-father" problem, again, over the years I have seen several instances in earlier records (before the years you mention) where, even though the natural mother was yet living, the child's status as "orphan" of the step-father was carried forth in references to that child. Especially was that true where the land upon which the child was living with the birth mother had been property of that deceased step-father. Such may be the case in your family matter. Paul In Administrator Abraham Cross' August 1821 cash distribution (ca $30 each) for the estate of James Landen, who died intestate early 1820, the first heir listed was Mills Landens (with no notation of deceased or estate of), then followed his brothers and sisters. For numerous reasons I won't bore you with I was positive that this was my 4g grandfather Mills who died in 1802 leaving orphan Elizabeth, but I had been under the impression that when names are listed at settlement they are only those of LIVING heirs, and I expected to find Elizabeth listed. She was the only child. Fortunately, I also have Elizabeth Landing's guardian papers, and at the final settlement of her account by John Vann in February 1841, after she is married to Michael Marsh, there is blessedly a notation that she is still due ca $30 plus interest from Abram Cross, administrator of dec'd Landen. They both signed the final settlement saying she had received the cash on hand, negro woman Sarah who now had four children (estate paid for midwives) and title to her father's land, which they promptly sold. So, in this instant in Gates Co. NC I found a listing, with no qualification, of a deceased son. Now I know Paul will say this wasn't the way it was supposed to be done, but my experience, growing by the day, is that there is a tendency to be more casual in listing names in settlement papers back then (only middle names if used, nicknames, etc.), although not as bad as in estate sale records, etc. I thought I would point this out for any of you who might have eliminated prospective ancestors because of the listing of the dead in an estate distribution that you might have assumed were still living, and therefore crossed that person who's estate was being settled off your list. Secondarily, it is a reason to try to get your hands on the guardian papers as well, since they would indicate any moneys that came to the orphan via other estates -- as well as find out how much money your female ancestors spent on calico, shoes, coats and ribbons (lots of those) every year. Now maybe this is very common and only the first time I have run across it. I am curious if others have had the experience. I believe that there is a similar incident in listing a Lemuel Harrell as receiving his part of the estate as an heir of Thomas Harrell in 1784, when he was also dead. I have a secondary question. I have not been able to determine when her stepfather Uriah Eure or mother Mary Harrell died, as I believe she was living with them at least in 1809, but from 1814 (but not before) to 1821 there is an expense titled "board for orphan". I would assume this would be a general expenses payment from the estate for her food, etc. where-ever she was living, but could it instead indicate that she was not living with her mother and stepfather? Best Regards, Janet Hunter ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== Problems Subscribing or Unsubscribing ? Contact: G. Lee Hearl List Adm. at: [email protected] Hosted by Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237