GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0987094490


From: (Nat Taylor)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:54:50 -0400
References: <3c.a3ed647.28071f3f@aol.com>


In article <>, wrote:

>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 quoted the 1631 suit himself on a post on April 4. It describes
Elizabeth Tomlinsons' nuncupative (oral) will, with the words:

"[the] said Elizabeth did then ordain and make ... Thomas Duddeley, her
son-in-law, and Henry Jevon, her servant, executors..."

Ken should understand the difference between an executor (chosen by a
testator) and an administrator (granted administration of an estate by a
probate court). Executors, like beneficiaries, can be freely chosen
(within certain limits) in a will. Paul Reed has clearly discussed how
and why courts choose administrators, and the implication for Edward
Bagley's parentage.

Nat Taylor

This thread: