1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  3. This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  4. Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

Wording in Admon

Discussion in 'Wills and probate' started by Pauline, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    I have a copy of a 1784 Admon which is puzzling me. The intestate, John Everitt, was a widower and his surviving children were minors.

    Administration was granted to John's brother Samuel Everitt, but what puzzles me is the note added to this: "during the Minority, and for the Benefit and Use of Sarah Everitt and William Everitt two of the children of the said Intestate"

    Why would only 2 of his children be mentioned and not all of them? The wording seems to imply that there were other children besides Sarah and William, and I think there was a son John (my ancestor) then aged about 3.

    The admon also notes that Samuel Everitt had been elected guardian of Sarah and William, but he seems also to have been guardian of John as his will (1793) appoints guardians for his nephew John.

    (William & Sarah are not mentioned in Samuel's will - William died in 1785, and although I have yet to find Sarah, she could have been 21 by 1793.)
     
  2. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Star

    Perhaps Samuel only had guardianship of Sarah and William at that time. Maybe the other (presumably younger) children were being looked after by someone else (possibly a female family member?), and Samuel became their guardian later?
     
  3. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    Yes, it’s possible Samuel took on guardianship of John at a later date although I would have thought that John should nevertheless have been entitled to share in the benefit and use of his father’s estate.

    Usually when an estate is administered on behalf of minors, they are named on the administration bond. The wording here makes it seem like only two of the children were entitled to benefit which seems odd.
     
  4. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    Just to clarify things here, what I have is an Administration bond rather than a Tuition/Curation bond so although referred to in a note on the reverse, the guardianship of the children is really a side issue.

    I guess my question relates to whether the wording on the bond "two of the Children of the said Intestate" can be understood to indicate that Sarah and William were not John Everitt's only surviving children, and if so, why his other child[ren] were not mentioned.
     
  5. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Star

    To our modern eyes, it certainly seems to imply other child(ren) existed. However, as it says 'two of the children of...' with no mention of 'surviving', could this mean that he had more than two children but the others had pre-deceased him?

    The mention of John in his uncle Samuel's will seems to imply that John had somehow been 'forgotten' in the earlier Admin bond (which as you say seems very odd), but could it be that John was the son of a different brother of Samuel's? Have you traced any other siblings of John senior and Samuel?
     
  6. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    Yes, I was worried about the possibility of interpreting things through modern eyes, and yes, there were children who predeceased their parents. Prior to seeing this admon bond I was unaware of Sarah's existence, and had William (born c1773) as the oldest child, followed by two children who died in infancy, and then my John (I hope!) born 1781.

    But since I can't find Sarah's baptism I can't be absolutely sure that there wasn't a burial for the 1781 John that I likewise can't find. That said, I'm not sure if deceased children would have been thought of in the context of a will or admon - not unless they had surviving issue.
    John senior had 3 younger brothers and 3 younger sisters. His oldest brother William did, I think, have a son John, of much the same age as "my" John, but I'm pretty sure his mother was still alive in 1793 and thus it seems unlikely that Samuel would have been appointing guardians for that John.

    The trouble with researching folk at this sort of date is that absolute proof often doesn't exist, and we have to rely to some extent on circumstantial evidence and our best attempts at interpreting the available records. This admon has muddied the waters a bit!
     
  7. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Star

    How very true. Our ancestors' reuse of common forenames doesn't help either. My tree has lots of similar examples to the two Johns you mention, i.e. cousins of similar age with the same name. Very confusing!
     
  8. Margery

    Margery LostCousins Member

    I agree. My great grandfather, Esau Godbold and his twin brother, Jacob, both married women named Mary Crisp. Of course, it transpired that they were first cousins, their fathers being brothers. Confusing, to say the least.
     

Share This Page