Heir of Conquest

[SarahND]

Hello all,

I have another question for a legal mind... AnneM or anyone else?

A Robert Gillies, merchant in Brechin, died on the 28 April 1806. His estate was given to his uncle Thomas Gillies Esquire of Balmaquan ("Uncle and Heir of Conquest of the said defunct in terms of the act 1695 Cap 24 Anent Apparent heirs entering to their predecessors Cum beneficio Inventory.") At the end of the inventory it also states that Robert's uncle William Gilies, Corn Merchant in London is also Apparent Heir and he swears "That to the best of the Deponents knowledge the within is a just and true Inventory of the Heritable Estate which belonged to the said deceased Robert Gillies his Nephew in so far as he has right thereto as heir of line to his said Nephew.". This Robert had a number of aunts and uncles (and at least one grandmother) alive at his death, although they are not mentioned in the document. Both his parents predeceased him, however.

My question is this: Does the fact that his Uncles were Heirs definitely mean that he had no closer relative living at that time? (Actually, I suspect he had a 3 month old illegitimate son at the time of his death, since later an uncle and an aunt left him legacies, but I assume he didn't count in law). What I am really interested in, is whether or not he had living siblings at the time. Would this kind of disposition of his estate mean for sure that no siblings survived him?

I found "Heir of Conquest" in the Oxford English Dictionary online and it seems to mean only that the estate was bought, not inherited, by Robert... so that appears to be neither here nor there in terms of my question.

If anyone can shed some light on this I would be very grateful.
Sarah

[AnneM]

Sarah

This one is quite difficult because we are talking so far back. I think you can be sure that he had no lawful son, brother or father surviving him and if my memory serves me correctly also no daughter. However I'm not so sure whether an uncle would be preferred over a surviving sister to inherit the heritage. I think he might but would have to look it up to be sure. Unfortunately a bit short of time at the mo but will see what I can do.

Anne

[SarahND]

Thank you, Anne!
As far as I know he did not have any sisters. He did have two brothers, however, and it is one of the brothers that I am looking for. If this means that all brothers were dead by then, well back to the drawing board-- this can't be the right family
I assume that if he had been estranged from his (twin!) brother, something would have been said in the document? Or could there have been a will that has been lost, leaving everything to the uncles?

As you can see, I'm having trouble letting go of this family... Sigh.
Thanks for the help,
Sarah

[AnneM]

Hi

My feeling is that if his uncle was his heir no brothers survived. unfortunately don't have a chance at the moment to look into this further. Normally the heir was in default of children the nearest male relative.

Anne

[emanday]

I know that, in England, it used to be fairly standard to "entail" an estate. This meant that the line of inheritance was set. For instance, if the only surviving child was female, the estate would be settled on an oldest surviving male relative, like an uncle.

If the same thing was possible in Scottish law, your rellie's estate might have been entailed in a similar fashion, though why to TWO uncles, I couldn't say, unless part of the entail was that the estate was to be split between them.

[SarahND]

Hi Anne and Mary,
It does sound as if his brothers had all died. The only loophole for me is that I'm not absolutely sure that this Robert is the one who had brothers Peter and Colin. It seems likely, given the location and age, but in every branch of every generation of this family there is a son named Robert It makes my head spin...

I doubt if it could have been an entailment, as the inventory goes on for pages about this house and three acres of land, telling who Robert bought each bit from. It is pretty clear that he bought it all himself and did not inherit it by entail (also clear from the phrase "Heir of Conquest" as I understand it.)

Thanks for your help! I will try to narrow down who the Robert was, in hopes that he is a different one... but it doesn't seem likely. One of the aunts left a legacy to "Robert Gillies, natural son of the late Robert Gillies merchant in Brechin my nephew". And then another uncle clinched it by leaving a legacy to "Robert Gillies the grandson of my late brother James". If these legacies are to the same person, and there was not another Robert Gillies, merchant of Brechin who also died... then I'm afraid the hopeful candidate for the position of 3rd great grandfather probably died in infancy

Oh well, back to searching...
Sarah

[AnneM]

Entails don't exist in Scotland. What you did have was the situation where the oldest son inherited the heritage as heir at law. If there were only daughters they would take between them as what was known as heirs portioners. I don't have to hand a heavy tome on succession law so I don't really have one that would go in detail into the pre 1964 law but a small one plucked from David's bookshelf says roughly that the pre 1964 law on intestacy re heritage would look first to collaterals such as brothers before going up the generations. This would suggest that the uncle who inherited was the father's oldest surviving brother and that your man had no living brothers at the time of his death. I don't know if that helps you any.

Anne

PS Until 1968 an illegitimate child had no right to succeed in anyone's estate being treated as the child of no-one so your poor lad was born a couple of hundred years too early to inherit from Dad. Relatives could of course as these ones did leave legacies.

[SarahND]

Thank you Anne,
I think you're right that he had no living brothers. The uncles in question were, in fact, the third and fourth oldest living uncles... but it is possible that the inheritance was divided amongst them all, and it was these two who were handling the inventory, etc.

I think I have to face the fact that these are not my people... (too bad, since they left a wonderful paper trail!)

Sarah