Any good legal minds out there? I am trying to understand a rather unusual will. The will was written by Hicks Bowen in 1787 Mecklenburg Co and evidently was kept at the house of William Drumright, one of the extrs. But Drumright's house burned with the will in it and a copy of the will had to be made (from memory? or was another handwritten copy kept elsewhere?) and presented to the court. This Hicks Bowen had no children. He named his wife Elizabeth to inherited his entire estate, and at her death, the estate was to be sold and divided between 3 godchildren. Following the seal (no signature since this was a copy) where the names of the witnesses usually appear it said "Assigned in the presence of ...." The names included Littleberry Bowen, eldest brother and heir, David Bowen, Wm Bowen, Alexander Bowen, John Bowen (Hughberry), John Thomerson and Mary his wife, Matthew Millsass & Agness his wife, William Drumright. Wills don't usually have so many witnesses, but maybe this was different since this was a copy and not the original. The wives for the non-Bowens are given except for Drumright, but none of the wives for the Bowens are given. At first, I thought it said "Signed in the presence of" and these were witnesses either to the original signature or to the fact that they had seen the original will. But the phrase is clearly "Assigned in the presence of...." There were other witnesses who testified as to the accuracy of the copy. What does this mean? Could this be interpreted to mean that these were siblings who otherwise might have inherited and they were assigning their rights to the widow Elizabeth and the godchildren? We know Littleberry was the eldest brother and heir-at-law, but what about the others? You can see a scan of the will from the will book at http://members.nbci.com/fcharper/hicksbowen.html Ignore the part at the top where I noted these folks as witnesses. That's what I thought they were, but I'm not so sure now. The scan with the actual wording is below that. I don't want to read too much into this, but at the same time, I don't want to miss what could be a very important notation. Can anyone give me a legal interpretation of this? Thanks!! Cookie

This is a rare incident, I think. | The will was written by Hicks Bowen in 1787 Mecklenburg Co and evidently was | kept at the house of William Drumright, one of the extrs. But Drumright's | house burned with the will in it and a copy of the will had to be made (from | memory? or was another handwritten copy kept elsewhere?) and presented to | the court. "Wills" containing memories of prior will documents are not true wills in the eyes of the law, and such result in intestate death. Still, however, where possible courts do and have for centuries given credence to the wishes known to have been contained in a destroyed will or writing. | | This Hicks Bowen had no children. He named his wife Elizabeth to inherited | his entire estate, and at her death, the estate was to be sold and divided | between 3 godchildren. He seems to have conveyed to her a life estate (women could not inherit land in VA in those times) and left the legal remainder to the God-children. | | Following the seal (no signature since this was a copy) where the names of | the witnesses usually appear it said "Assigned in the presence of ...." The | names included Littleberry Bowen, eldest brother and heir, David Bowen, Wm | Bowen, Alexander Bowen, John Bowen (Hughberry), John Thomerson and Mary his | wife, Matthew Millsass & Agness his wife, William Drumright. How do you know these are witnesses? Does the entry or record say so? | Wills don't usually have so many witnesses, but maybe this was different | since this was a copy and not the original. The wives for the non-Bowens are | given except for Drumright, but none of the wives for the Bowens are given. If they were witnesses, it may simply be that all those folks were present at his death. It may also be that it was a true assignment before the court of the total rights of the God-children (I can not tell from your note here who all were the G-kids and their spouses). If it was an assignment, then a deed should appear sometime, perhaps many years later, for the land that was so assigned (check the description and the subsequent deed records). Then, finally, it may simply be that, since the land was to be sold with the g-kids gaining the proceeds, that the land had been sold to those who received the assignment, thus fulfilling the wishes of the dead man. You have really not given us enough facts to be sure what was happening, however I think the above may be the core of it all. Interesting!! Paul | | At first, I thought it said "Signed in the presence of" and these were | witnesses either to the original signature or to the fact that they had seen | the original will. But the phrase is clearly "Assigned in the presence | of...." There were other witnesses who testified as to the accuracy of the | copy. | | What does this mean? Could this be interpreted to mean that these were | siblings who otherwise might have inherited and they were assigning their | rights to the widow Elizabeth and the godchildren? We know Littleberry was | the eldest brother and heir-at-law, but what about the others? | | You can see a scan of the will from the will book at | http://members.nbci.com/fcharper/hicksbowen.h tml | Ignore the part at the top where I noted these folks as witnesses. That's | what I thought they were, but I'm not so sure now. The scan with the actual | wording is below that. | | I don't want to read too much into this, but at the same time, I don't want | to miss what could be a very important notation. Can anyone give me a legal | interpretation of this? | | Thanks!! | | Cookie | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | USGenWeb Archives Digital Maps Project | http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/ | | | ============================== | Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases | http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp | Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! |

> | Following the seal (no signature since this > was a copy) where the names of > | the witnesses usually appear it said > "Assigned in the presence of ...." The > | names included Littleberry Bowen, eldest > brother and heir, David Bowen, Wm > | Bowen, Alexander Bowen, John Bowen > (Hughberry), John Thomerson and Mary his > | wife, Matthew Millsass & Agness his wife, > William Drumright. > > How do you know these are witnesses? Does > the entry or record say so? That's the point. I THOUGHT these were witnesses since their names appeared where the names of witnesses usually appear, but the it doesn't say "Witnesses" or "Witnessed by" or "Teste" or even "Signed in the presence of". It says "Assigned in the presence of". Does that mean they were witnesses or that they were potential heirs who were assigning their rights to the heirs that Hicks had named? > If they were witnesses, it may simply be that > all those folks were present at his death. It > may also be that it was a true assignment > before the court of the total rights of the > God-children (I can not tell from your note > here who all were the G-kids and their > spouses). There were only three godchildren named. William Ladd Hicks, Eldridge Bowen, and Polly Thomerson. But there are no commas, so the three names might be William Ladd, Hicks Eldridge Bowen, and Polly Thomerson. Hick's eldest brother Littleberry Bowen was the father of Eldridge Bowen. There were no spouses mentioned for the godchildren. They were probably young and unmarried. The spouses appeared in the list that started with "Assigned in the presence of..." The wives of only the non-Bowen's were given, which might suggest that Hicks' sisters and their husbands as well as Hicks' brothers were assigning their rights of inheritance to the widow Elizabeth Bowen and the three godchildren. I don't KNOW that that's the case. That's what I'm trying to determine. If it was an assignment, then a > deed should appear sometime, perhaps many > years later, for the land that was so > assigned (check the description and the > subsequent deed records). Hicks Bowen's estate remained on the tax lists for many years. We think widow Elizabeth remarried but there's no marriage record. The land seems to have eventually been sold to a Pennington, most likely indicating that Elizabeth had died. This from the tax records. Then, finally, it > may simply be that, since the land was to be > sold with the g-kids gaining the proceeds, > that the land had been sold to those who > received the assignment, thus fulfilling the > wishes of the dead man. You have really not > given us enough facts to be sure what was > happening, however I think the above may be > the core of it all. Interesting!! Paul What I'm trying to do if possible is prove the siblings of Hicks Bowen. I'm not sure if these folks who signed were witnesses to what they knew were Hicks' wishes, or his siblings assigning any rights of inheritance they might have had to the widow and then the godchildren after her death. Littleberry Bowen was certainly a brother, but I'm not sure if the record indicates that the others were probable sisters and brothers or not. I've never seen this "Assigned in the presence of ...." notation before. There was no one noted as a witness to the signature - probably because there was no signature. Where the witnesses usually appear was this "Assigned in the presence of" notation with the long list of names. Farther down and clearly not part of this list of names, John Bugg, Samuel Kirks, and Bressie Bowen deposed that the copy presented to the court was an exact copy of the original will that was burned. I guess in some ways, this is similar to a nuncupative will, but it's not quite the same. A scan of the entire will and all the notations with it from the will book is at http://members.nbci.com/fcharper/hicksbowen.html I wish I could give you more information, but I can't give any more than the exact wording of the record and a scan of the entire record.