I have obtained a will for one Edward Shirely, written March 31, 1761 and proven in 1764 and wonder about what I have found in the last part of the document related to the proving of the will. It states in full: "On the Seventeenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Four Administration with the will annexed of the Goods Chattels and Credits of Edward Shirley late of the Parish of Staines in the County of Middlesex deceased was granted to Thomas Spencer a creditor he having been first Sworn Duly to Administer Mary Shirley Widow ....... Relict of the said Deceased and Sole Executrix in the said Will having been first duly cited to accept or refuse the execution of the said Will and in no wise? appearing Ann Bath Widow Sarah Shirley Spinster Elizabeth Taylor (Wife of John Taylor) John Shirley the natural and Lawful Brother and Sisters and only next of kin of the said Deceased having been first likewise Duly Cited with the usual In----ation to accept or refuse Letters of Administration with the said Will annexed of the Goods of the said Deceased in no wise appearing and no residuary? signatee? is named therein" What I am wondering about is what are the siblings of the deceased involved in this for? The wife was appointed the sole executrix and the Thomas Spencer a trustee. And, if Mary was the Executrix, what is Thomas Spencer likely doing in the position of Trustee or administrator? Bill Dalton

Man write Will, citing his wife as Executrix: she declines to Administer (you don't have to obey!). Administration would than go to "next of kin" children siblings parents nieces nephews uncles aunts grandparents I think that's the pattern. In this instance there would appear to be no children, and the siblings declined also, and there would appear to be no other next of kin still alive, nor a "residuary legatee" (not signatee). This is the person/organisation under the usual "all the rest of my estate I leave to.....", but again this doesn't appear in the wording. The use of the phrase "no wise appearing" could also be that the relict and the siblings had already done a bunk! Therefore the creditor obtained administration and got his money. One could assume that the value of the estate was relatively small, and the relict thought that handing over the administration to the creditor was an easier option for her than going to court, selling the goods, and then handing over the money. The creditor need not have been a nasty person - though that's possible of course! Have you looked in the Times to see if there was any kind of legal notice at the time of death/probate asking for kin or creditors? With three years between death and probate this was obviously not dealt with quickly. JK On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Bill Dalton <rnbill@centurytel.net> wrote: > I have obtained a will for one Edward Shirely, written March 31, 1761 > and proven in 1764 and wonder about what I have found in the last part > of the document related to the proving of the will. > > It states in full: "On the Seventeenth day of November in the Year of > our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Four Administration with > the will annexed of the Goods Chattels and Credits of Edward Shirley > late of the Parish of Staines in the County of Middlesex deceased was > granted to Thomas Spencer a creditor he having been first Sworn Duly to > Administer Mary Shirley Widow ....... Relict of the said Deceased and > Sole Executrix in the said Will having been first duly cited to accept > or refuse the execution of the said Will and in no wise? appearing Ann > Bath Widow Sarah Shirley Spinster Elizabeth Taylor (Wife of John Taylor) > John Shirley the natural and Lawful Brother and Sisters and only next of > kin of the said Deceased having been first likewise Duly Cited with the > usual In----ation to accept or refuse Letters of Administration with the > said Will annexed of the Goods of the said Deceased in no wise appearing > and no residuary? signatee? is named therein" > > What I am wondering about is what are the siblings of the deceased > involved in this for? The wife was appointed the sole executrix and the > Thomas Spencer a trustee. And, if Mary was the Executrix, what is > Thomas Spencer likely doing in the position of Trustee or administrator? > > Bill Dalton > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >