<joslake@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >John Lyon and/or listers: > >The elongated subject line above probably is it's own answer, but in the context of >John Lyons' response re Richard Lockwood, what reaction would result from a 1741 Ssx >Co will which omitted the usual "bad health but sound mind" terminology; first named >two executors; then phoenetically spelled an unintelligible spouses name; named 5 >children; briefly mentioned "tenements and real estate" but omitted any & all ID of >same, and that was about it. <snip> ______________ I’m not sure what you’re reading into the will that would make it particularly different from a lot of other wills that are vague or baffling in a whole variety of ways. What seems opaque to us at 270 years’ remove could have been as clear as glass to the parties (legatees, probate court, other actors) who had to deal with it. In trying to construct accurate title histories for many properties, I often find the lack of specificity in wills to be a big hurdle. It’s often necessary to undertake a complete analysis of several properties held at death, including the tracing of subsequent title, to deduce what was meant by the testator, and which way all his real estate went. There are a lot of tricks to this detective game, and not everything comes easy. At the same time, the hardest of the nuts often bear the best fruit, in that the effort forces you into deeper digging. This is called by Monty Python "looking on the bright side of life", one of my most-invoked t! unes when digging in these ditches. John

John ... could you please send me Monty Pythons address :-) :-) If I could just find (whine, whine) some land docs to "analyse". Onward and upward. Joe Lake > <joslake@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>John Lyon and/or listers: >> >>The elongated subject line above probably is it's own answer, but in the context of >>John Lyons' response re Richard Lockwood, what reaction would result from a 1741 >>Ssx >>Co will which omitted the usual "bad health but sound mind" terminology; first >>named >>two executors; then phoenetically spelled an unintelligible spouses name; named 5 >>children; briefly mentioned "tenements and real estate" but omitted any & all ID of >>same, and that was about it. <snip> > > ______________ > > I’m not sure what you’re reading into the will that would make it particularly > different from a lot of other wills that are vague or baffling in a whole variety > of ways. What seems opaque to us at 270 years’ remove could have been as clear as > glass to the parties (legatees, probate court, other actors) who had to deal with > it. In trying to construct accurate title histories for many properties, I often > find the lack of specificity in wills to be a big hurdle. It’s often necessary to > undertake a complete analysis of several properties held at death, including the > tracing of subsequent title, to deduce what was meant by the testator, and which > way all his real estate went. There are a lot of tricks to this detective game, > and not everything comes easy. At the same time, the hardest of the nuts often > bear the best fruit, in that the effort forces you into deeper digging. This is > called by Monty Python "looking on the bright side of life", one of my most-invoked > tunes when digging in these ditches. > > John > >