Subject: Re: Will Abstracts
Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-From: SCROOTS-L@rootsweb.com
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 00:54:50 -0400
From: "Steven J. Coker"
Organization: http://www.wp.com/Coker/faq.htm
To: SCROOTS Forum
Joan,
You asked a lot of questions. Here are my thoughts offered in response.
Issue #1: Wills are normally dated the date that the Testator and witnesses
signed the will.
Issue #2: Wills are "proven" the date that the witness swear to the designated
authority (e.g. the Justice of the Ordinary) that they witnessed the Testator's
signing and that it was the Testator's will. The date the will is proven was
after the Testator died, but the amount of time after the death varies.
Issue #3: Inventories of the estate of the deceased were normally required by
the Court. The Inventory would be made by persons of good reputation appointed
by the Court. They were often friends and neighbors of the deceased and/or the
heirs. The Inventory, like the will, would usually be made and signed on one
date and sworn to before the Court on a later date.
Issue #4: Bound to means pretty much what it says. When you take an oath to do
something then you are "bound" to do it and are subject to penalty should you
fail. Administrators are bound to the Court under oath to return a just and
true inventory of the estate and administer the estate in accordance with the
instructions given by the Court. Also, an heir or administrator might be bound
to a bondsman.
Issue #5: From your posting it appears that Moses Taggart was the Ordinary for
Abbeville District. The Ordinary was the local court officer who oversaw and
made official the administration of the estate. The Justice of Ordinary would
have been someone who served for a given term. I don't have handy a definition
for the term "Ordinary" as used in South Carolina. But, South Carolina law was
derived from English law. The following definition of "County Court" given in
Black's Dictionary contains an explanation of "ordinary courts" which seems
reasonably applicable.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 3rd edition (1891,1910,1933)
Source: http://www.cascadian.com/~cascadia/CRC/Court/SelectedBlacksLaw.html
"COUNTY COURT A court of high antiquity in England, incident to the jurisdiction
of the sheriff. It is not a court of record, but may hold pleas of debt or
damages, under the value of forty shillings. The freeholders of the county
(anciently termed the suitors of the court) are the real judges in this court
and the sheriff is the ministerial officer. Bl. Comm. 35, 36; 3 Steph. Comm.
395. But in modern English law the name is appropriated to a system of tribunals
est. by the statute 9 & 10 V ict. c. 95 having a limited jurisdiction,
principally for the recovery of small debts. It is also the name of certain
tribunals of limited jurisdiction in the county of Middlesex, est. under the
statute 22 Geo. II. C. 33. In American law, the name is used in many of the
states to designate the ordinary courts of record having jurisdiction for trials
at nisi prius. Their powers generally comprise ordinary civil jurisdiction, also
the charge and care of persons and estates coming within legal guardianship, a
limited criminal jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction over justices of the
peace, etc."
Issue #6: To understand why a certain number or selection of administrators was
made requires more knowledge of the particular estate, the facts involved, and
the customary practices in the Courts involved. Here are some quick thoughts
that might give causes for multiple administrators.
a. An Administrator would likely have been required to post a bond. Often the
heirs did not have sufficient resources to post a bond and thus would seek
someone who had sufficient resources to satisfy the bonding requirement. The
bondsman may be listed as an administrator.
b. Minor children may have guardians appointed for them. It would not be
unusual for the children to be separated amongst multiple guardians. One or
more of the guardians may have been made an administrator.
c. The deceased may have had several land holdings. The lands may have been
assigned to various heirs, or others, to manage or farm for the good of the
estate. Those who accepted control of such lands may have been made
Administrators.
d. If the assets were to be auctioned, then the persons accepting the job of
inventorying the estate and/or conducting the auction may have been made
Administrators. An auction required financial transactions, accounting for the
proceeds, and managing the monies and bills resulting. It would have been
important for the people doing that to be sworn under oath to do it just and
true.
e. The husband of a well-loved female heir may have been made an Administrator
to represent the interests of the female heir.
f. The heirs may not have been educated enough, healthy enough, or old enough to
make the written records and accountings needed. Thus, they may have needed
help from others who could make such records and do such accounting. One
Administrator might have been appointed just to keep the books.
g. The heirs might not have trusted each other. They may have been more
comfortable with several people administering the estate than just one who could
otherwise juggle the books.
h. The Court may have been corrupt and may have appointed persons to nefariously
manipulate the estate, or portions of it, away from the rightful heirs at less
than its true value.
That's enough for me. Have some other things to do.
Hope that helps,
Steve Coker
http://members.tripod.com/~SCROOTS
Joan or Gary Reich wrote:
>
> Can anyone help me interpret some will abstracts from Old 96 and Abbeville
> Dists?
> Will Dated Dec 26, 1826 - the date it was written?
> Prov. Oct 26, 1827 - Is this proved? Does this mean the person died about
> this time?
> Inv. Made - is this an inventory of the deceased person's possessions?
>
> The following is confusing to me:
> Est admnr. Oct 22, 1823 by John, Sam'l Cothran, Charlotte Stevens, Geo.
> Marshall bound to Moses Taggart Ord. Abbeville Dist sum $9000.00.
> Cit. pub. at Rehobeth church. Sale Dec 30 1823. Byrs: Charlotte Stevens,
> John Kary, etc.
> Why would it take so many people to administer the will? What does "bound
> to" mean? Would Moses Taggart be the judge? I notice his name on quite a
> few wills in this manner. What is Ord.?
>
> This may be very clear to many of you out there but confusing to me. I
> hope someone will help me out by explaining these things to me. Thanks.
> Joan
>
> greich@pro-online.net
==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====
Address your comments & suggestions to:
Steven J. Coker
carolina@yours.com
http://members.tripod.com/~SCROOTS