A handwitten Will

[GillianF]

I would be very grateful if someone could read/interpret this handwritten Will for me.  The Will is that of Joshua George Seaman.  I'm hoping that some of the wording may clear up a mystery.


Joshua's widow (Martha) remarried and died in 1903 leaving nearly £8,500.  My ancestor (not related to Martha) was granted Administration on three Estates in 1904.  One of the Estates was the daughter (Elizabeth Ann) mentioned here in terms of a pianoforte who died aged 17 in 1858.  The other two Estates do not seem to be relatives of Martha but rather the half brother and his widow of this Joshua Seaman.

Thank you for anything anyone can offer!

Moderator comment: Apologies, but you may not post images of complete wills, even if rather small and difficult to read  .  Small portions that you might be struggling with, that's fine, but not a) the whole thing or b) lots of snippets which eventually amount to the whole thing.  Thanks 

[horselydown86]

Gillian, I have scanned through the will on Ancestry (the image you have posted is far too small to read).

It is an extremely legalistic will with virtually no passages relating to people.

He makes three people his Trustees and Executors:

1.  Wife Martha during her widowhood (but not if she remarries).

2.  William Attenborough of Dengie in Essex, Farmer.

3.  William Jackson of Maldon, Draper.

The only other person mentioned by name in the will itself is daughter Elizabeth Ann in relation to the gift of the Piano fforte (as you said).

Witnesses are John Crick and William Crick, both of Maldon.

Everything else is explanation of the conditions applying to the trusts and guardianship of his children.

[GillianF]

Sorry about the small attachment.  I was worried about attaching something too large!

Thank you for the time you've taken on this.  Does it say what happens to the money when Martha remarries?  Joshua had two children with his first wife but they both died as teenagers.  Martha and Joshua had a son together but he died as an infant in 1855.

I'm really trying to find out why my ancestor was granted Administration on three Estates which do not seem to be 'hers' and wonder where the money came from as the first was a humble carpenter leaving £600, the second was his widow who died in the workhouse with an Estate of nearly £200 and the third was Elizabeth's Estate for nearly £600 - this Elizabeth being Elizabeth Ann who inherited the pianoforte.

This is a very convoluted family and more information can be read here

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=800752.msg6583098#msg6583098

[horselydown86]

Does it say what happens to the money when Martha remarries?

He gives Martha the household furniture and household effects plate linen china printed books implements and utensils of household and consumable stores and provisions.

He doesn't say what happens to these if she dies or remarries.

The residue of his personal estate and the whole of his real estate goes into the trust fund.

The income from this is paid to Martha during her life for the maintenance of herself and the maintenance, education and bringing up of the children (subject to certain conditions of age and marriage of the child).

After she dies the capital of the trust (in essence and somewhat simplified) becomes shares for the children (and children of any deceased child).

If Martha remarries her powers as Trustee and Executrix disappear and it becomes as if the two Williams were designated sole Trustees/Executors by the will.

[GillianF]

So, Martha re-married.  The three children she had with Joshua all died before adulthood/marriage so the line died out.  Presumably, then the money would just sit somewhere waiting for someone to know about it and claim it.

Who would be the next person in line for Martha's funds?

[horselydown86]

So, Martha re-married.  The three children she had with Joshua all died before adulthood/marriage so the line died out.  Presumably, then the money would just sit somewhere waiting for someone to know about it and claim it.

Who would be the next person in line for Martha's funds?

The provisions in the will are for Joshua's children, not only his children with Martha.

If there were children born to a first wife, they would inherit their shares at 21 years or upon marriage (daughters only); or if deceased and having children of their own, their children would inherit the share.

If Martha were dead and none of Joshua's children to any wife reached the age of 21 years, married or had issue, then the trustees would have a capital & income from the trust but nothing to use them on.

The will doesn't specify an action to take in this situation.

If Martha remarried, but survived all the children (as specified above) then by the provisions of the will (I think) she could claim maintenance from the income of the trust for her life, although she wouldn't be a trustee or executor herself.

[GillianF]

Thank you!  I'll wait for Martha's Will to come to me but it seems that the money sat somewhere and when Martha died in 1903 it became available.

Martha was not 'my family' so the only way it would come to us was if the money reverted to Joshua's Estate on her death and then went to his half-siblings (my family) or was bequeathed to my family by Martha.

Intriguing!

[GillianF]

I now have the Will of Martha Voce.  I don't pretend to understand all the legal wording but there are lots of bequests to family members:  mostly sisters and nieces, nephews and a servant.  There is a lot of detail about money and who gets which bit of furniture, knives and forks, jewelry etc.

None of the names are any that I recognise as my family.

The Emma Larkin who had Administration of three Estates in 1904 was my grandmother's grandmother and the daughter of Abraham Seaman by his second marriage.  Martha was the second wife of Joshua George Seaman who was the son of Abraham by his first marriage.

Abraham was a carpenter who died in 1862.  Emma was granted probate in 1904 (a year after Martha's 1903 death).  Abraham's estate was nearly £600.  Emma also had probate for Abraham's widow (Elizabeth) who died in 1885 in the workhouse and her 1904 estate was nearly £200.  The third probate which Emma was granted in 1904 was Elizabeth Ann for nearly £600 and this is the daughter of Joshua and his first wife.  Elizabeth (first wife) died in 1851 and her daughter (Elizabeth Ann) died aged 17 in 1858.

I just cannot understand how my ancestor could get the probate on these three Estates and where the money came from.

I've created a tree to sort it out in my mind but ……….. it doesn't!

[horselydown86]

Gillian, having looked at your material it strikes me that the reason is quite simple.

Martha Seaman/Voce is a distraction, a red herring*.

Emma Larkin was a blood relative of the three people to whose estates she was granted administration in 1904.  Martha wasn't a blood relative to any of them.

If an estate or estates are left unadministered because the nominated original administrator dies, or refuses the burden, or for any other reason, the nearest living blood relative of the testator has the prima facie case to apply for and be granted the administration.

It may be that in 1904 Emma Larkin was the nearest living blood relative of these testators.

However, this raises the question of why the estates remained unadministered until 1904.

It may be that this had something to do with Martha (hence my asterisk above).

There's no point in speculating on this in a vacuum.  If you want to get to the bottom of this, the place to start is with the documentation of the grants to Emma Larkin in 1904.

With luck, it will mention in whose place Emma Larkin has become the administrator.

One of my relatives died intestate and childless in Edmonton in 1891.  His administration was granted to his nephew; described as "the lawful nephew and one of the persons entitled in distribution to the personal estate".

The grant document notes that the intestate's "natural and lawful sister and only next of kin of the said intestate" had renounced the administration.