GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0987104739


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: 12 Apr 2001 19:45:39 GMT
References: <c5.fb81243.28071bad@aol.com>


>Paul, you are missing the point entirely because your mind is made up.

NOPE. It is still willing to listen to evidence and reason and change it's
position if justified. Funny that my mind is that way.

>you are not reading
>my posts and understanding them.
>

I think I understand what you are trying to say, I'm just questioning them when
they don't match the facts.

> In this
>court record, the admininistrator was not Edward Bagley but two of Elizabeth
>Tominlinson's sons-in-law, Thomas Duddley and Henry Jevon (husbands of her
>illegitimte daughters).

N.B.: YOU HAVE AGAIN USED THE TERM ADMINISTRATOR !!!!

Do you understand the difference as we have explained it between executors and
administrators? They were administering her estate AS EXECUTORS. It ain't the
same thing as administrators appointed by the court in matters of intestacy.
[!!!] One is an apple, the other is an orange. You can only make apple pie
out of one.

>The question is how can they be legal administrators and more than
>Edward Bagley?

No it isn't. From records we have quoted, the two were chosen Elizabeth's
executors when she uttered her nuncupative will on her deathbed. They would
administer her estate as executors.

If you have not grasped what we have explained time and again, it would seem
that it is you who do not want to listen to simple explanations of fact. I
have not been expounding any great mystery. These are simple rules of probate
law and procedure that anyone working with probate records of this period have
to deal with (and understand) on a daily basis.

Paul

This thread: