Hi Bev, English Common Law, 18th Century Virginia: http://www.usgenweb.org/researchers/misc.html Bill Allen <misterbill@pdq.net> Ms2001@aol.com wrote: > This is something that comes up every now and then. I did not compile this > information myself but saved it when it was posted by someone else. I wish I > had saved the name of the person so I could give them credit! > > Bev > > According to George Webb, The Office and Authority of a Justice of Peace > (Williamsburg, 1736)a person was considered "of age" under different > circumstances. On page 188 he wrote: > > "At Common Law, every Person under the Age of One and Twenty Years is an > Infact; but this holds only in Civil Causes, for in Criminal Matters the > Law regards the Age of Discretion, which is 14 Years. Co. Lit.1.3. f.405 > > "And in Cases Civil there are several Exceptions, as, The Age for a Man to > marry, is 14, and for a Woman 12. Hob.225. > > "An Infant of 17, shall take Administation, or prove a Will, in his own > Right; for then the Power of Administrator, or Executor, during Minority, > ceaseth. Vaughn, 93. > > "And whatever Act he doth, which was his Duty to do, as giving Release upon > receiving all Money due, Paiment of just Debts, &c. shall bind him. Co. 5. > Rep.27. > > "Above 18, may bequeath Slaves, by Will in Writing. 1 Geo. 2. cap. 11. > > "And in divers other Cases, whereby by Special Law, or Custom, an Infant > shall be bound, as tho' he were of full Age. > > "Surety of the Peace is grantable to or against an Infant, tho' under 14 > Years of Age. Dalt. 269. > > "An Infant of 14 Years may commit Forcible Entry, or Detainer, for which he > may be fined; and he shall find Sureties for his Good-behaviour; But he > shall suffer no Imprisonment, nor Corporal Pains, for Breach of any Penal > Law, wherein an Infant is not expressly named; yet, he shall forfeit the > Penalty of a Penal Law, and so may lose his Goods. Doct. & Stud. p. 147, > 148. > > "An Infant above 18, may be a Disseisor with Force, and may be imprisoned > for the same. 22 Edw. 4, cap. 9. > > "In all Cases of Treason, or Felony, Infancy is no Plea, but the Offender, > tho' under 14, shall be liable to the Punishments by Law inflicted for such > Offence, if it appear that he had Knowledge of Good and Evil. Dalt. 350." > > There are other circumstances when a person is considered "of age", for > example, orphan boys were appearenticed until age 21 and girls to age 18. > If I remember correctly, anyone 14 or older could witness legal documents. > (Saved from another list.) > > Appointment of a legal guardian was not nessicarily related to who raised a > child or where he or she lived. > > A legal guardian was either named or chosen for an entirely differnt reason: > to protect the child's right to his or her inheritance. > > Typically, when a father or mother died, the children continued to live with > the surviving parent, or perhaps with grandparents or other relatives, and > no legal action was deemed necessary. > > Guardians for the children were thus not named or chosen until some > "triggering" event. For example, suppose the widow decided to remarry. Under > typical laws, she was entitled to her "dower right" (usually one-third), and > the children were entitled to the remainder of their father's estate. In > view of the impending marriage, it was usually deemed necessary for the > under-age children to have guardians to see to it that their property rights > were protected. > > The other common "triggering" event was the death of a grandparent. Suppose > the children's mother had previously died and the children were living with > the father. Later, the mother's father died intestate. In this case, her > children would be entitled to their mother's share of the grandfather's > estate, thus make it necessary that the children have a legal guardian. (In > a case such as this, it might well be that the father of the children was > named their guardian.) > > The appointment of a guardian by the court or the choosing of one by someone > at least 14 years old contains some hidden messages for genealogists: > > First, as noted, it says that those who chose guardians were at least age > 14. > > Secondly, it tells you to look for some event that made the appointment of > choice of the guardian necessary - usually the remarriage of the mother or > the death of a grandparent. > > What it does not tell you is when the parent (or parents) may have died. Nor > does it tell you anything about who actually was rearing the children. IOW, > the guardians were for strictly legal purposes, not for the purpose of > saying who should be responsible for raising the child. > > It is true, however, that totally orphaned (both parents dead) were often > raised by an uncle or other close relative, who was also their guardian. > Said uncle would, of course, exact the costs of keeping and schooling the > children from their inheritances!