Tucker, Jesse v. Raines, Heartwell: Judgment, Brunswick County
Zoom in to read each word clearly.
Some images may have writing in several directions. To rotate an image, hold down shift-Alt and use your mouse to spin the image so it is readable.
The dffs claim under the sale aforesaid.
These points occur in the cause. 1. Whether Jefferson Rains was under age at the time of the plts [sale?] to his brother | no child 2. Whether his long absence without ever being heard of forms sufficient presumption of his death so as to entitle the plf to his estate as [heirs?] at Law. 2. Stra: 199 - 920 - bull. nis: pr 295. 3. Whether the sale by an infant be good though he afterwards comes of age, without a new sale ]illegible] of the contract. Bull. nis: pr: 155 1. Stra. 94.
3d day Rains vs [illegible] } Detinue pro dft Rec'd 2 [questions?]
It makes no difference that Rob. W. Rains would have been heir. to Jefferson; because [nee?] claim now as heir to Jefferson & not to Robt.