i have some papers from the national archives concerning the estate of my ancestor's first husband, and was wondering what the outcome might have been? i only have two parts of the case (the catalogue only shows these two): her husband's brother in law's vs hers.
my ancestor followed her brother to sumatra in 1771, within six mths she had married her first husband (she was his third). he died in 1772, and by 1776, when the case statements were written, she had remarried to her second husband (my ancestor). the family returned to england between 1780-1797.
her first husband's brother in law made a case that the last will was valid- written just after the second wife died, leaving everything to his kids, and freeing all his servants. her case rested on the fact that she had married him (therefore was entitled to something), and that she had a letter dated prior to marriage stating he would provide for her. but he never wrote a new will it seems (and her new husband's signature was on the old will as a wittness).
so basically the brother in law was stating the will he had was the valid one, and should be upheld. she stated the estate should be intestate, as he never wrote a new will reflecting their marriage.
so what would the outcome likely be? would the estate have been intestate and everyone gets a share? or would the last will be valid? from memory when her second husband wrote his will in 1778 and died in 1780, the matter wasn't resolved as he left the bulk of the estate to their daughter, assuming his wife would get her inheritance from her first husband.
my ancestor followed her brother to sumatra in 1771, within six mths she had married her first husband (she was his third). he died in 1772, and by 1776, when the case statements were written, she had remarried to her second husband (my ancestor). the family returned to england between 1780-1797.
her first husband's brother in law made a case that the last will was valid- written just after the second wife died, leaving everything to his kids, and freeing all his servants. her case rested on the fact that she had married him (therefore was entitled to something), and that she had a letter dated prior to marriage stating he would provide for her. but he never wrote a new will it seems (and her new husband's signature was on the old will as a wittness).
so basically the brother in law was stating the will he had was the valid one, and should be upheld. she stated the estate should be intestate, as he never wrote a new will reflecting their marriage.
so what would the outcome likely be? would the estate have been intestate and everyone gets a share? or would the last will be valid? from memory when her second husband wrote his will in 1778 and died in 1780, the matter wasn't resolved as he left the bulk of the estate to their daughter, assuming his wife would get her inheritance from her first husband.
Comment