Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Query

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will Query

    I have a will dated 1800 which states:
    'I give and devise my messuage, farm and lands with the appurtenances ... unto my brother to hold unto and to the use of him and his assigns during his life and aftger his decease I give and devise the said messuage ... unto my nephew and niece and their heirs and assigns for ever..'
    NB. the nephew was aged 5 and the niece aged 9 in 1800.

    Would I be right in thinking that, as the property was only 'on loan' to the brother and not technically his, there would be no need for him to mention it when he makes his will in 1814 leaving everything to his wife??

    thoughts/advice welcome

    Oh, just had a thought, could the brother's wife we termed 'his assign' as referred to in the original will of 1800?

  • #2
    I have a similar will, where a gt gf was mentioned in his fathers will this way but as it was also mentioned the gt gf had debtors and so could not be the next owner of the properties or inherit anything but would be passed on to his children upon his own death.

    The properties mentioned in the will were really just on loan on the death of his father until his own death and then passed on to his children so any debtors could not make a claim on them.

    Edna

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, you are right, he does not need to mention the farm in his will as he is merely the trustee. his wife might have ben his assign, that would depend on who he named as his assigns in his own will.

      I have a lot of farmers Wills in my family
      and the wife is almost always an assign. This I think, was to protect her position as a widow and to make sure the eldest son didn't kick her out and make her homeless.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you for your replies Edna and OC
        So, as the brother (who was left the messuage etc for his lifetime) put in his will - "I give devise and bequeath unto my dear wife all and every my freehold and copyhold messuages land tenements and hereditaments ... to hold to her my said wife her heirs and assigns absolutely" and he named his wife the executrix - I am assuming that the 'all and every my freehold ... etc' would include the property left in trust to him.

        Will have to dig much deeper with this one as there is no evidence that the nephew and niece ever received their inheritance.

        The 'dear wife' of the brother (they were married 6 months before he died) died in 1832 and her will made no mention of the property left in trust - there were no children and she left everything to her cousin.

        SM

        PS The nephew named in the original will was my 3x gt grandfather but I'm not bitter - honestly!!

        Comment


        • #5
          The brother's Will can only dispose of his OWN freehold property, etc. By naming his wife as his assign, then she is the trustee of the property he is holding for his nephew and niece.

          They may not have wanted the property and may have relinquished it for a suitable sum of money. I have several instances in my farming lot, of quitclaim, although admittedly that does usually refer to leasehold and not freehold.

          I have one case in the early 1700s where the new (young!) wife holds onto the mill and lands for over TEN YEARS after her husband's death. There was no will (very suspicious) and they only managed to get her out because she was heavily pregnant and needed to remarry!

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            OC
            Thank you for explaining that - will put the 'gold digger' theory on the back burner for now and maybe explore the spendthrift ancestor theory instead...

            Just one more query about the legal niceties before I tackle the family stories - What would have been the legal age at which the nephew and niece could have relinquished their individual inheritance?? (In 1814 when the uncle died they were 19 and 23, orphans and both unmarried).

            SM

            Comment


            • #7
              Hmmm, not sure actually. 21 was the age of majority of course, so the nephew could decide for himself at 21. Not entirely sure about the female - although it was usually 21, she might have been under guardianship as her father was dead, and that might have affected things. Sorry that's such a vague answer.

              OC

              Comment


              • #8
                Ah, well that might possibly explain one of the family stories which concerned wards of chancery.
                Will request a search of any land tax assessments from the RO and see what they turn up.
                Thank you for your help
                rgds
                SM

                Comment

                Working...
                X