Re: Sir William Blackstone meets Hening's Statutes (insanity & forgetfulness...
- From: binky <binky9@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
First of all, I thank Colin for his example. It confirms what we
know, and shows a harmony among the sources. When Blackstone made the
comment that a will couldn't be challenged on the grounds that the
testator was insane, he meant what he was saying. Had there been any
way to do so, there would have been a legal procedure in order to
prevent fraud. That Blackstone mentions no such procedure, while he
does list the procedure to prove an nuncupative (oral) will, is sure
indication that no such procedure existed.
Obviously the wills in the ecclesiastical courts that have been voided
due to insanity or idiocy are just wills of those authors previously
declared, in accordance with legal requirements, as prohibited from
making a will. Their heirs intervened, told the court the testator
was legally incapacitated, and the court obliged by throiwiing out the
will. It must have happened any number of times.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $150.00 was spent on Sparacio Lancaster Co. VA abstract books so
that I could double check MichaelAnne Guido's statement that there had
been a number of lawsuits between Edward Dale and William Rogers
during the period of 1693-1695. I had considered the matter closed,
but since Mr. johnson wants to rake it up again, let me quote from Ms.
Guido's post made in this newsgroup on May 11, 2006:
"There were anumber of lawsuits between Edward Dale and William Rogers
in the period 1693-1695 in the Lancaster County Court and at the time
Edward Dale wrote his will he was angry at William Rogers. One of
these entries follows:"
She then quotes a lawsuit dated 13 Sep 1693 as an example.
This statement is false. The only lawsuit EVER between Edward Dale
and William Rogers is the one Ms. Guido quoted. There are no others
before or after it. There's no evidence that Edward Dale was angry
with Rogers when Dale made his will on 24 Aug 1694. The "twelve
pence" clause that has Will foaming at the mouth can't possibly be due
to fear of a lawsuit. What Will doesn't understand is:
(a) It was illegal in 17th century VA for a child to sue for a share
of a parent's estate if the parent left a will
(b) By law, in the 17th century (and this changed in the 18th
century), any property received by a wife from any source, became the
property of her husband. It was illegal for a married woman to file a
lawsuit. This "twelve pence" clause couldn't possibly protect Dale
from a lawsuit. He would have had to get a waiver from William Rogers
for that.
As for Will, if he's saying the Diana Skipwith line has been "cut-
off," my question is by whom?
I have a right to my own conclusions, and it's an absolute fact that
BY LAW the only claim Elizabeth Rogers, as a married woman, had was
against an intestate estate of a parent. Since her father left a
will, the only other possiblity for an intestate estate is against
Diana Dale, therefore Diana is proved to be her mother. It's that
simple. A search of Lancaster Co. court orders shows no one ever
applied for administration on an estate for Diana Dale, and that would
have had to happen there. So there was no such estate.
This twelve pence clauise reads as follows:
"Item I give unto my daughter Elizabeth now wife of William Rogers
twelve pence in full of all claimes whatsoever." It is the only
clause in Dale's will without qualifying language following, like
"against my estate." It's a waiver of personal property rights; a
waiver of a right to real estate required a quit-claim deed.
Any claim based upon anything else would have required Dale to get a
waiver from Elizabeth's husband, William Rogers. THAT'S HOW IT WAS IN
THE 17TH CENTURY. IT CHANGED IN THE 18TH CENTURY. FIRST TIME BRIDES
(AS OPPOSED TO WIDOWS) WEREN'T ALLOWED TO AHVE PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS
IN THE 17TH CENTURY. It's all a matter of what laws were in effect at
the time a legal instrument was made.
I'm sorry Will has chosen to rake this up, and in my opinion it's just
a set-up so Richardson and others can have a crack at the argument.
You happy now, Will? I don't know who you people think you are, I
don't know what you think you're doing, I don't know if you think
Richardson and Roberts "cut" lines... I don't know what the story is,
I don't know if tony Hoskins runs the world of lineage societies
(because he doesn't). You tell me, what's the deal here? What
exactly are you guys all about? Are you trying to get MichaelAnne off
the hook?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Sir William Blackstone meets Hening's Statutes (insanity & forgetfulness...
- Next by Date: Re: Sir William Blackstone meets Hening's Statutes (insanity & forgetfulness...
- Previous by thread: Re: Sir William Blackstone meets Hening's Statutes (insanity & forgetfulness...
- Next by thread: Re: Sir William Blackstone meets Hening's Statutes (insanity & forgetfulness...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
