GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986971927


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: 11 Apr 2001 06:52:07 GMT
References: <70.97a0a23.28048b38@aol.com>


[Ken wrote:]
>Filio ex matre makes no sense, of course ... no one ever said it did ... it
>was changed ..>>

It was not changed. Filio had been written on the main line (which originally
read the quivalent of the usual, 'natural and legitimate son' [fil' nat'
leg']). This was crossed out. In superscript, the correct description of the
relationship was given. That it was changed actually bears towards it being
correct, as it shows that the clerk actually verified the relationship given in
the record.

>It was an appeal
>of an earlier case and the original administrators were not present. >>

No, it was not an appeal. Where was the nuncupative will mentioned in the
court case proved? No testament was mentioned in this administration, as would
be typical if a will were involved.

If it were an appeal, there would have been a sentence and decree, or
administration with will attached, etc. The executors named in the nuncupative
will are not the same thing as "administrators," as I have mentioned in another
post.

Ken, I don't know how you can be ignorant of even general knowledge concerning
probate procedure and law, professing errant opinions as if they were fact,
telling us to adjust to your misinterpretations (not even seeing the actual
documents), and then be so opinionated in demanding that we change our
conclusions based on speculation. Amazing.

Paul

This thread: