Hello Everyone, On another list we are wrestling with the question of a widow's rights to her husband's property -- land and slaves/moveable property -- in testate (a will was written and proven) and intestate estates. And how they differed before and after the abolishment of primogeniture soon after the Revolution (at varying times in different states). Am I correct in the following?: Under Primogeniture: If there was a will, a widow could contest it in court if she was not bequeathed the equivalent of her dower 1/3 of the value of slaves and other moveable personal property (after the payment of debts). However, she would have had no legal rights to contest her husband's division of land, as dower rights then did not extent to land. If there was no will, a widow had a legal right to her dower 1/3 of the value of slaves and other moveable personal property, but all of the land went to the eldest male heir. In both cases if she wanted a place to live she was at the mercy of friends and relatives, unless she had other assets (or funds from sale of slaves, etc.) that allowed her to support herself, pay rent as a tenant, etc. Post-primogeniture: If there is a will, a widow could and can contest it if she does not receive at least the equivalent of 1/3 of the value of the estate. I believe that now there is no legal distinction between land and other assets in determining her 1/3, but at least in the ante-bellum south, initially the focus was on 1/3 of the land and separately 1/3 of the slaves, the rest. Did widows, believing themselves to have got the short end of the stick in their husband's wills, then perhaps not ask the court to lay off 1/3 of the land for her dower if she chose (or was told by a judge) to take her 1/3 of the entire estate out of slave-holdings? Were there two separate calculations, land and personal property? If there was no will, the widow was entitled to 1/3 of the value of the estate. But, my question is the same as that when there is a will. Was her dower right based on 1/3 of the value of the entire estate, or separately 1/3 of the land and 1/3 of personal property? Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter

Janet, I'm interested in the answer to your questions as well. My question: About what year did the abolishment of primogeniture happen? Thanks, Marla

I would expect that the widow's portion would be determined by the laws of the jurisdiction in which she lived. Each state wrote their own laws of inheritance and they would apply. Tree Mother > Hello Everyone, > > On another list we are wrestling with the question of a widow's rights to > her > husband's property -- land and slaves/moveable property -- in testate (a > will > was written and proven) and intestate estates. And how they differed > before > and after the abolishment of primogeniture soon after the Revolution (at > varying times in different states). > > Am I correct in the following?: > > Under Primogeniture: > > If there was a will, a widow could contest it in court if she was not > bequeathed the equivalent of her dower 1/3 of the value of slaves and > other moveable > personal property (after the payment of debts). However, she would have > had > no legal rights to contest her husband's division of land, as dower rights > then > did not extent to land. > > If there was no will, a widow had a legal right to her dower 1/3 of the > value > of slaves and other moveable personal property, but all of the land went > to > the eldest male heir. > > In both cases if she wanted a place to live she was at the mercy of > friends > and relatives, unless she had other assets (or funds from sale of slaves, > etc.) > that allowed her to support herself, pay rent as a tenant, etc. > > Post-primogeniture: > > If there is a will, a widow could and can contest it if she does not > receive > at least the equivalent of 1/3 of the value of the estate. I believe > that > now there is no legal distinction between land and other assets in > determining > her 1/3, but at least in the ante-bellum south, initially the focus was on > 1/3 > of the land and separately 1/3 of the slaves, the rest. Did widows, > believing > themselves to have got the short end of the stick in their husband's > wills, > then perhaps not ask the court to lay off 1/3 of the land for her dower if > she > chose (or was told by a judge) to take her 1/3 of the entire estate out of > slave-holdings? Were there two separate calculations, land and personal > property? > > If there was no will, the widow was entitled to 1/3 of the value of the > estate. But, my question is the same as that when there is a will. Was > her dower > right based on 1/3 of the value of the entire estate, or separately 1/3 of > the land and 1/3 of personal property? > > Thanks in advance. > > Best Regards, > Janet (Baugh) Hunter > > > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb Archives Census Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/ > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > >