In the Parish Records published by DAR there is only one John Dillard - born 30 March 1739 son of Edward and Martha. This book is notorious for its errors and spaces in copying and in indexing. One would really need to go to a microfilm of the original and read the whole thing. I did read a good part of it a number of years ago but never again. But that isn't necessary in this particular instance as John Dillard is named as husband of Elizabeth (Younger) daughter of Alexander and Rebecca (Mills) Younger in 1732 in court records. Deed May 1753 Timothy Driscoll to John Price all his estate (realty and personal) in Virginia in consideration of a marriage promise sometime before his intermarriage with "my wife's daughter, Ann Younger and moving hereunto." By the way, the Vestry Book for South Farnham Parish 1739-1779 is being published as we speak by Heritage Books. I ordered a copy yesterday. I tried to read this ledger one time on microfilm and what a headache. Certainly the content won't be as useful as a Parish Register but hopefully there will be some useful tidbits in it. There is nothing helpful in the wonderful "Diary of Robert Rose" edited and annotated by Ralph Fall. Robert Rose was long time pastor of St. Anne's Parish. To me the 1/8th question still is not resolved. There were 8 children and the wife. Two of the children were to inherit land but not share in the personal property other than as listed in specifics in the will (guns cows). That equals six shares plus wife's share. If John died and one of the six children remaining was promoted to receive his real property share the will said that this new real property heir's old share in the personal property was to be divided between the others receiving personal property. So that would leave five shares plus the widow's share. I just don't get it. It is possible that Rebecca agreed to a child's share but it still doesn't add up. Was there a child not mentioned in the will? If an oldest son was not mentioned he would by law receive any land that was not disposed of by will plus a share in the personal property. (Laws of primogeniture and intestate property.) But Alexander was very careful to state what would happen if all his heirs died so I don't think he left a son's share to by disposed of by primogeniture laws. And I now realize there should not have been an older son as Alexander named by name the six children to receive personal property. Rebecca's share could have been figured at 1/4 and she had only drawn half of her due. I'm just trying to find a logical legal explanation for this strange accounting. I wish we could find the final settlement. Pat Finnell