GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0987088191


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:09:51 EDT



In a message dated 4/11/01 4:27:34 PM,
writes:

<< Where's the succinct answer to Paul's question? >>

In a message dated 4/9/01 8:06:40 AM, writes:

<< How do you rationalize that if we discount illegitimacy, why would a
son of a daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson be granted administration of her
estate
BEFORE it was granted to one of her living sons or a son's son? I'm STILL
interested to hear your answer to this specific point. Please respond. >>

You _cannot_ get rid of the illegitmacy question and discount it. There were
two separate court cases, not one, and both had administators. In 1631 the
administrators were husbands of the illegitimate daughters. This 1631 suit
was also brought by Dud Dudley and these men were also defendants.

In 1635, the suit was named Edward Bagley as the defendant and administator
-- and he clearly was not the administrator if the administrators in the
other case were her sons-in-law -- despite what the court record says. Unless
an administator is changed, the same one should continue for the life of the
case. Paul will say that this is another case, but both dealt directly with
the estate of Elizabeth Tomlionson. The later was in a higher appellate type
of court.

_Ken



This thread: