Author Topic: 1861 Adminstration  (Read 241 times)

Offline collin

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
1861 Adminstration
« on: Friday 05 July 19 09:07 BST (UK) »
Hi
   I am wondering if it would be worthwhile purchasing an administration from 1861, the grant was to his widow and the value was under £7000. Then written below is Resworn at the stamp office April 1864 value under £5000.
£2000 is a big reduction but the eldest son married the sister of my great grandfather on 31 March 1864 so I am wondering he he received a payout? Would this be recorded on an administration?  Thanks
Collin Oldham Lancs   Rogers Dudley  Abbott  Ripley Derbys    Hartley Outwood Yorks

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline andrewalston

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,169
  • My granddad
    • View Profile
Re: 1861 Adminstration
« Reply #1 on: Friday 05 July 19 10:11 BST (UK) »
We are looking at a LARGE amount of money in the 1860s. There would be tax to pay.

When the estate was totted up, adjusting the amount down from the first estimate would reduce the tax payable.

The Administration would be unlikely to mention anyone not already mentioned in the index.
Looking at ALSTON in south Ribble area, ALSTEAD and DONBAVAND/DUNBABIN etc. everywhere, HOWCROFT and MARSH in Bolton and Westhoughton, PICKERING in the Whitehaven area.

Census information is Crown Copyright. See www.nationalarchives.gov.uk for details.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online ShaunJ

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,628
    • View Profile
Re: 1861 Adminstration
« Reply #2 on: Friday 05 July 19 10:43 BST (UK) »
The death duty ledger page (at the National Archives) might record the names of the beneficiaries of the estate but I have no personal experience of researching an intestacy case.
UK Census info. Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline StevieSteve

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,608
    • View Profile
Re: 1861 Adminstration
« Reply #3 on: Friday 05 July 19 12:53 BST (UK) »
I've seen names in an administration in the DD Ledgers, though also just "1/3 wife, 2/3 children"

Fire up the deceased's name & residence or better still the DD index reference from FindMyPast and I can have a look tomorrow
Middlesex: KING,  MUMFORD, COOK, ROUSE, GOODALL, BROWN
Oxford: MATTHEWS, MOSS
Kent: SPOONER, THOMAS, KILLICK, COLLINS
Cambs: PRIGG, LEACH
Hants: FOSTER
Montgomery: BREES
Surrey: REEVE

Offline collin

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1861 Adminstration
« Reply #4 on: Friday 05 July 19 16:41 BST (UK) »
Thank you all,  so not really worthwhile sending for the document. I had one in DD registers where the estate was divided between the widow and the children but thought this was a strange one as it was resworn after 3 years.
The deceased was Thomas Rhodes a cotton spinner of Garlick Street Oldham. The son Thomas married Ellen Collin in 1864 and when he committed suicide in 1883 she started a confectionery business so there was money around. The widow Mary Rhodes died in 1888 at the home of son Abel but her fortune had dwindled to £269, again it was a letter of administration
Collin Oldham Lancs   Rogers Dudley  Abbott  Ripley Derbys    Hartley Outwood Yorks

Offline StevieSteve

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,608
    • View Profile
Re: 1861 Adminstration
« Reply #5 on: Friday 05 July 19 17:15 BST (UK) »
OK, that's IR27/425 Folio 684 corresponding to IR26/3306
Middlesex: KING,  MUMFORD, COOK, ROUSE, GOODALL, BROWN
Oxford: MATTHEWS, MOSS
Kent: SPOONER, THOMAS, KILLICK, COLLINS
Cambs: PRIGG, LEACH
Hants: FOSTER
Montgomery: BREES
Surrey: REEVE

Offline collin

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1861 Adminstration
« Reply #6 on: Friday 05 July 19 18:17 BST (UK) »
Just an after thought. I wonder if the reduction in value could be something to do with the cotton famine in Lancashire during the early 1860s?or could it be the eldest son was only18 in 1861 and reached 21 in 1864.
Collin Oldham Lancs   Rogers Dudley  Abbott  Ripley Derbys    Hartley Outwood Yorks

Online ShaunJ

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,628
    • View Profile
Re: 1861 Adminstration
« Reply #7 on: Friday 05 July 19 22:19 BST (UK) »
The value of the estate would not be affected at all by potential distributions to beneficiaries. It is simply the value of the deceased's net assets at the date of death. Sometimes facts come to light after the initial probate valuation, which give rise to a downward revaluation. It could be that something was included which shouldn't have been or that there was a debt or obligation which wasn't included, or (perhaps more difficult to prove) that the initial valuation of some assets was overstated. 
UK Census info. Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk