GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986458518


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: 05 Apr 2001 08:15:18 GMT
References: <bf.d08b11c.27fce20c@aol.com>


[Ken wrote:]
<<There was no estate ... this woman had no money for the love of Pete ... >>
[snip]
>Elizabeth had no real income, no property in her own name, nor any fortune
other than being kept all her life by Edward Sutton. >>

If she had no property, why was there a nuncupative will? Why were there
lawsuits? Why was an administration granted?

<<You are all treating her as though she were royalty with property and she was
not.>>

No. We are just treating the facts and evidence according to proper legal
interpretation. We are not stating that Elizabeth was wealthy, but that she
had enough personal property to warrant an administration being granted. If
there were no purpose, why would the probate judges of the PCC have wasted
their time (and the money it cost)?

Until 1838, nuncupative wills were valid if declared before a witness, the
testator declaring that they were of whole mind, and appointing an executor.
But the testimony of the witness had to be deemed credible by the judges.

If a will in not accepted as valid, and an administration would be granted
(sometimes a sentence being provlaimed to explain the decree), the
administration would be, according to law, committed to the next lawful heir
(unless the deceased was indebted, whereby an administration might be granted
to creditors).

ADMINISTRATION BONDS for the PCC exist from the 16th century. One wonders if
there might have been a bond entered. Bonds were frequently in two sections,
the first part in Latin, the second in English. If a bond exists for this
case, it would certainly end whatever question there is as the relationship to
Edward Bagley should be stated again in Latin, and then in English.

Paul

This thread: