From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Sun Mar 26 14:48:05 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2QLm5jb022606; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:48:05 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2QLm3SF019317 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:48:03 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k2QJGmFI009594 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:16:49 -0500 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k2QJGm9O009593 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:16:48 -0500 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k2QJBpFI009583 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:11:51 -0500 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k2QLgsdk019688 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:42:54 -0700 X-Envelope-From: Kith-n-Kin@cox.net Sun Mar 26 14:42:54 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2QLgsjb019679 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:42:54 -0700 Received: from fed1rmmtao05.cox.net (fed1rmmtao05.cox.net [68.230.241.34]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2QLglTg016341 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:42:53 -0700 Received: from TOWER ([68.0.155.47]) by fed1rmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060326214241.DUHH17838.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net@TOWER>; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:42:41 -0500 From: "Kith-n-Kin" To: , Subject: RE: [ROOTS-L] Unusual guardianship papers Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:42:32 -0700 Message-ID: <00f901c6511e$30d211a0$6601a8c0@TOWER> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <2da.54e68f5.31585764@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by admin.rootsweb.com id k2QLgsjb019679 Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com J. Are you saying that the widow remarried during this time, and so her new husband (the step-father) was named guardian? Or, was a person named guardian, to whom she later was married? I suggest the idea about the different mothers is valid. The named guardian might be a brother or other relative of the child's mother, if there was some estate that would accrue to this child from his mother's side. Worth a look at other legal matters for him. I wouldn't guess that his mental ability would be an issue here, at age 12 or so. Later, if he was judged not to be able to manage his share of the estate, (not becoming an "adult") then there may be more papers there for that reason. The most common reason for guardianship was to protect the child's property. Our current ideas of protecting the child's person wasn't common (may not have existed). Pat (in Tucson) |-----Original Message----- |From: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com |[mailto:roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of JBletch@aol.com |Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 13:45 |To: ROOTS-M@rootsweb.com |Subject: [ROOTS-L] Unusual guardianship papers | | |I have run across an unusual set of guardianship |papers and wonder if there is anyone who has |read anything similar. Any point of view appreciated. | |A man died (intestate) in MS in 1827, leaving six |minor children as heirs of his considerable estate. |The oldest child, a son, was 12 or 13 at the time. |This oldest child was handicapped in some way, being |listed in the guardianship papers (also in census records |as an adult) as a lunatic and idiotic. All guardianship |papers were filed in the orphan's court. |The five younger children were all included in one set |of papers with two court appointed guardians. The |older child had a separate set of papers. All the children |had their step father as one guardian. The second |guardian was different. | |My questions are why the separate filings? They were |both filed at about the same time. |Was the oldest child by a different wife? Did it have to do |with the fact he was handicapped? | |