Z937/29

Wills, legacies and inheritance disputes

1651 - 1787

From: 1651 To: 1787

A few of these wills are worthy of individual mention because of their idiosyncracies. Two wills specifically state that should the testator's heir-at-law dispute or object to any legacy in the will, he will be deprived of his benefit. In the case of John Piggot's will of 1661, his heir would "have no benefit in his will", and in Charles Nicholls Field's will of 1753 - an unusual will in other ways too - he offers 80 to his heir-at-law if he does not obstruct the execution of the will. Charles Nicholls Field's will is a curious one. He leaves all his considerable real and personal estate, except a few minor bequests, to "the education of the constant frequenters of the Church of England and their children"; and the interest from 100 to the vicar on every anniversary of Field's death to preach a sermon on "the absolute necessity of restitution for all injustice". One wonders if he had an uneasy conscience. In the event, the heir challenged the legitimacy of the unusual legacies and kept his 80 as well. Charles' brother Thomas Field in his will of 1748 insisted that his only son be cut off with nothing if he marries Mary Atkinson, a servant in Thomas's house. Thomas says he's sent his son away to Sussex because he suspected there was something between them. Deborah Field's will of 1787 is interesting in its largely female list of beneficiaries. She makes bequests to 11 women, most specifically to her brother's daughters for their education. Only if he has no daughters are his sons to benefit. There are 5 male beneficiaries, and the residue is to be shared equally between all her brother's children, male and female. There is one brief, precautionary sentence near the end of her will which might suggest a reason for the curious and disputed wills of her uncles and grandfather: she makes provision for trustees to administer her affairs if she becomes "deprived of her reasoning faculties so as to render her incapable of managing her own affairs". Certainly her uncle John Field in 1728 was allegedly incapable of making a rational will through "age and sickness" - he was 73 (see Z937/10/7 for the dispute). But Deborah was only 35 when she died, so we are left to ponder the significance of this clause.

Several wills have been catalogued elsewhere in this catalogue with the deeds to which they relate. The wills in this section are those that cannot be placed easily either because they cover several properties or because they're not referred to in any deeds.

sub-fonds