Just double checking some legalese

[MythicalMarian]

I can never be satisfied with what I've got - I'm one of thosepeople who keep checking, rechecking, going back over...just to make sure I have the right folks etc.

I just wanted to ask our Wills experts a general question. We all know there are standardised phrasings used in wills, but in a will drawn up in 1728, would I be right about the following:


It is my will and mind that if it shall so happen he shall die leaving no lawful issue on his body lawfully begotten...

This refers to a bequest to a son. Would I be right in thinking that at the time his mother has drawn up this will he has no children? I think it does, as I haven't found any baps, but I'm not sure. However, it would not necessarily mean that he was not married, would it? Or would it? (Not that I've found a marriage for him either yet, but I just thoughts I'd ask)

Just want your expert opinion, gents.

[MythicalMarian]

Might he have had an illegitimate child or children, and his mother didn't want them to benefit in any way, Marian?

Finbar.

Not sure about this, Finbar, because she repeats this for sons numbers two and three. All her sons were buried in the parish of their birth later on, but I've not seen any kiddies for 'em. Her eldest and youngest sons do not have this stipulation. The eldest was married with kids (traced in the registers) and the youngest not old enough to marry at the time of Mum's will.

To add weight to the 'legalese' phrasing - I have another will from 1778, in which (again it's a widow) the testator states a similar thing about a beneficiary dying without leaving any lawful issue. The difference here is that she is listing two of her daughters - both are married. I know one of them has children at the time; the other never had children with her first husband, who died young. This widow's lawyer changes the terminology slightly. For the daughter who has no kids he uses word 'begotten'; for the daughter who has kids he uses 'born or unborn'. This makes sense, because the married daughter who has no kids as yet was the testator's youngest child and had only married a couple of years before mum drew up her will.

In both wills, the ladies are of course saying that if these named beneficiaries should die without leaving children behind, their portion will revert to whoever.

I just need to know whether it is stock phrasing in these wills, or whether there is obvious evidence of children or not.

[Geoffers]

in a will drawn up in 1728, would I be right about the following:

"It is my will and mind that if it shall so happen he shall die leaving no lawful issue on his body lawfully begotten"

This refers to a bequest to a son. Would I be right in thinking that at the time his mother has drawn up this will he has no children?

Although inclusion of such a sentence and in the terms used, makes it likely that the son has no lawful children - it cannot be inferred with absolute certainty, just from that phrase only that the son does not have any lawful children.

No inference may be drawn from the wording that the son was not married.

How close to death was the testator when the will written?

[MythicalMarian]

How close to death was the testator when the will written?


Three years. Her sons to whom this wording applies were aged: 44, 35 and 31 respectively. (My original post widow!)

[BeeE586]

""It is my will and mind that if it shall so happen he shall die leaving no lawful issue on his body lawfully begotten"

I would like to know what follows as this does not seem to be a complete sentence. If the son does die and leaves no lawful issue, what is the stipulation she then makes ?

Prsumably she has made a bequest to this son so was she saying that if the son should pre-decease her without lawful issue, the bequest should be otherwise given ? e.g shared between her remaining children or whatever.

I think we need to know more of the will to give an opinion.

Eileen

[MythicalMarian]

""It is my will and mind that if it shall so happen he shall die leaving no lawful issue on his body lawfully begotten"

I would like to know what follows as this does not seem to be a complete sentence. If the son does die and leaves no lawful issue, what is the stipulation she then makes ?

Prsumably she has made a bequest to this son so was she saying that if the son should pre-decease her without lawful issue, the bequest should be otherwise given ? e.g shared between her remaining children or whatever.

I think we need to know more of the will to give an opinion.

Eileen

Well, Eileen, as I said above, she was then passing on the bequest to the next son and the next etc. Ok - here it is verbatim:


Item: I give and bequeath unto my beloved son William Siddall the sum of twelve pounds and to my beloved son John Siddall of Manchester all that my house and smithy situate lying and being at Brownlow Green in the Parish of Northenden and County of Chester aforesaid and to his heirs forever subject nevertheless to the payment of five pounds which I owe upon bond to Oswald Wright of Stockport aforesaid.

Item: It is my will and mind that if it shall so happen he shall die leaving no lawful issue on his body lawfully begotten then I give and devise my aforesaid dwelling house and smithy unto my son Henry Siddall and his right and lawful issue forever subject also nevertheless to the payment of the aforesaid sum of five pounds.

Item: In case my said son Henry dying leaving no lawful issue then I give and bequeath my aforesaid dwelling house and smithy unto Samuel Siddall my son and to his heirs forever subject nevertheless to the payment of the sum of the five pounds if not before paid and discharged by my son John and Henry Siddall.

Sam is the youngest son - William the second eldest (married with kids otherwise proven - no probs) - John who has gone to Manchester is the one who has the stipulation, as does Henry. (John did return to Northenden to take up his bequest of the smithy, and is buried there). I am not sure if he married or not. Henry, buried in Northenden in 1752*, was - I am pretty certain - never married.

So - Lizzie states the following: The smithy at Brownlow (Brownley) Green is to go to her third eldest son John (who's buggered off to Manchester for the mo - but does come back, no doubt to take up his inheritance - he's also one of her executors) - but if he should die leaving no lawful kids to inherit from him, then the smithy goes to Henry (her fourth son). If Henry dies without lawful issue, the smithy goes to Sam.

Any help? I wasn't really wanting to go into the machinations of the actual will here - just needed clarification on terminaology. However, I welcome our experts' opinions, as there may be something I've not even thought of. (Thankfully, the eldest lad Tom in this will - who is simply dealt with, is my direct line :))

* Sorry - I should add - Lizzie's will was drawn up in 1728

[John Nicholas]

Marian,

You can draw no conclusion about the son's condition at the time the will was written. You might guess that he didn't have any children but it doesn't say so. It is a condition which is to be applied when the son dies. Even if he had children when the will was written, the chances of their predeceasing him were appreciable - and the lawyers like to cover all the angles anyway.

What happens if he dies "without issue" (as they say)?

John

[BeeE586]

Thank you for the explanation, Marian. I have transcribed hundreds of wills from the 1530's on over the past twenty or so years and I am always interested in the terminology. One thing these people did was to try to cover all bases - they really tried to make their intentions known regarding their property which on occasions must have been difficult when the person perhaps couldn't read, someone else was writing it down and they may have been on their death bed anyway.

It just HAD to be a Siddall, didn't it ? I have some Derbyshire Siddall wills that are no use whatsoever.

Eileen

[MythicalMarian]

Marian,

You can draw no conclusion about the son's condition at the time the will was written. You might guess that he didn't have any children but it doesn't say so. It is a condition which is to be applied when the son dies. Even if he had children when the will was written, the chances of their predeceasing him were appreciable - and the lawyers like to cover all the angles anyway.

What happens if he dies "without issue" (as they say)?

John

Thanks for this, John. This is precisely what I was wondering - was it just a legal clause, or is it giving us direct evidence. However, damn your eyes - you have now given me two possible fathers for my man! However, as they're brothers it isn't going to make a huge difference for the generation before this one. It does make a difference for which mum is my direct line though....help! I'll do a bit more digging on John-versus-Tom.


Thank you for the explanation, Marian. I have transcribed hundreds of wills from the 1530's on over the past twenty or so years and I am always interested in the terminology. One thing these people did was to try to cover all bases - they really tried to make their intentions known regarding their property which on occasions must have been difficult when the person perhaps couldn't read, someone else was writing it down and they may have been on their death bed anyway.

Yes - and in this case, Eileen, this particularly smithy had been in the family for generations. Lizzie's husband Henry predeceased her but I haven't found a will for him, so our Lizzie's is the last known 'willing' of this smithy. As John is buried in Northenden, I assume he did come back to take up his inheritance, but we hear no more of the smithy at Brownley Green after this.


It just HAD to be a Siddall, didn't it ? I have some Derbyshire Siddall wills that are no use whatsoever.

Eileen

Yes...don't get me started.... I've collected dozens of them over the years, but apart from this little quirk in Lizzie the widow's will, I have to say that at least my Northenden ones have been very helpful - especially when one or two children have 'missing' baps.

Another thing I wouldn't mind asking you, Eileen - and all our other Will experts - you know that preamble at the beginning - all the god-bothering bit. Some testators seem to go a bit overboard with the religious thing; others simply launch in with their bequests and make no mention of the Almighty. Anything to infer from this? Was this, again, just up to the particular lawyer? Was it a convention?

[valr]

Marian,

You can draw no conclusion about the son's condition at the time the will was written. You might guess that he didn't have any children but it doesn't say so. It is a condition which is to be applied when the son dies. Even if he had children when the will was written, the chances of their predeceasing him were appreciable - and the lawyers like to cover all the angles anyway.

What happens if he dies "without issue" (as they say)?

John

Hi
My first post!
I am a lawyer - I dont do wills any more but have seen a fair few.
I dont think anything can be read into this - she obviously had a lazy lawyer who just put in all the standard clauses, irrespective of the actual situation.
Or to be more charitable, the lawyer may have wanted to cover a situation where the "legal issue" ie children born in wedlock, predeceased their parent, in which case the said parent would indeed die without surviving legal issue.....
hope that helps
val