children should die intestate without wife or children, in the lifetime of the 
mother, every brother and sister and their representatives should have an 
equal share with the mother; and if all the children should die intestate, without 
wife or children, in the lifetime of the mother, then the portion of the 
child so dying last should be equally divided, one moiety to the mother, and 
the other moiety to the next of kindred by the father. 101 In the instant case 
William Allaman, the father, died intestate in 1732. When the surviving child 
Sarah died intestate in 1741, the mother had remarried with one John Tabb 
and had issue the appellants, Humphrey Toy and Martha. Upon the death of 
Sarah, the slaves which constituted the subject matter of the appeal became 
chattels to prevent an escheat (pursuant to a 1705 act), and were taken into 
possession by the mother and her second husband, presumably by virtue of the 
first clause of the above act —including children of the half-blood in "every 
brother and sister." In 1753 the respondents, children of "the next of kindred 
by the father," filed a bill in chancery to compel appellants to account for 
one-half the slaves of intestate Sarah, the bill being predicated upon death 
of "all the children" under the statute. In April, 1758, the General Court 
decreed that the respondents were entitled to one-fourth of the slaves of which 
Sarah died seised and one-fourth of their increase and profits since her death. 
A final decree was made upon the return of commissioners in October, 
1758. 102 
From these decrees an appeal was taken by the Tabbs, while a cross-appeal 
was also entered with conciliar consent by the Edmundsons. 163 At the Cockpit 
hearing the appellants mainly insisted that the true intent and meaning 
of the 1705 act was that the next of kindred by the father should not be entitled, 
except in the event of the intestate dying without leaving any brother 
and sister. But in the instant case the appellants were brother and sister of 
the half-blood to the intestate Sarah and were living at her death. 164 The respondents 
urged that no rule could be drawn for governing the instant case 
from the practice in England of letting in the half-blood under 22 and 23 
Charles 11, c. 10, and 1 James 11, c. 17. The Virginia enactment went much 
further than the English statutes in its emphasis upon the father of the intestate. 
In the face of such emphasis it could never have been intended to let in 
brothers and sisters by the mother to the exclusion of the father's own kindred 
105 Lord Mansfield, however, rejected any distinction between the colo- 
161 3 Hening, Stat, at Large Va., 371, 372. 164 Case of Appellant, Add. MS, 36,218/248- 
162 Case of Appellant, Add. MS, 36,218/248- 49. 
49. For the act preventing escheat see 3 Hening, 165 Case of Respondent, Add. MS, 36,218/250- 
Stat. at Large Va., 333. 51. 
163 PC 2/107/256, 310, 330, 347, 399; PC 
2/109/203.