Did Uncle James grab the children's inheritance?.....

JohanH · Post by **JohanH** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:37 am

Can anyone comment on two questions?
Were there any legal provisions concerning guardianship in 1887?
What rules would have applied when someone died intestate and why didn't the children of John Henderson inherit his money?

When widowed Captain John Henderson (1841-1886) drowned at sea, he left 5 children. I have just found a document which was completed at Cupar in 1887 and signed by a JP, stating that John's personal estate was worth 264 pounds. In the entry, his younger brother, James, states that he knows of no testamentary settlement or writing and he is 'desirous to enter upon the possession and management of his estate'.
I was surprised that there was no mention whatsoever of John's children - his eldest daughter, Agnes, was 21 at the time and recently married. (Maybe she didn't want the responsibility for her siblings - she emigrated to Australia in 1889.) The 10 year-old James (my grandfather), had a sorry time in the care of his Uncle James, who it seems, drank away the money and neglected the boy's education. Another son, Thomas (17) may have gone to sea at this stage and the fate of the girls, Catherine (14) and Jessie Elizabeth (8) remains a mystery.

Sobil · Post by **Sobil** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:47 am

It seems a common trait from olden times til present day that you can always cheat someone out of what is legally or rightfully theirs!

Children are always the victims because it is automatically assumed they cannot make decisions. 100 years ago the same would have been assumed of women, that they were lightheaded and incapable of logic. It would have been easy for a brother or other male relative to squander their inheritance!

Post by **AnneM** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:34 am

Hi

Don't assume that the children did not get the money. I think that all it means to say that he was desirous to enter into the possession and management of the estate is that he would be his brother's executor i.e. would manage the estate until the money could be passed to the beneficiaries who in this case would be the children, if all the estate was non land and there was no surviving spouse, then equally between them. The brother would not be entitled to anything.

Anne

Post by **AnneM** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:36 am

Hi

Just only noticed that he drank away his brother's estate instead of managing it properly. Nothing much you could do about that. The estate even by those days standards would be too small for an official body to take an interest.

I would need to check up on the position of married women's property at that time but I thought by then they had autonomy. Would have to check my books! As you say could be she did not want the responsibility.

Anne

JohanH · Post by **JohanH** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:25 am

Thanks for your comments, Sobil and Anne. I supppose it was too unimportant to attract much attention at the time. Even if there had been an unstated agreement to use the money for the children, I imagine there was little that anyone could do to follow up.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:30 pm

Hi Johan,

The £264 in 1887 was a goodly sum - worth near £18,000 today.

This site is useful for converting to today's value (well nearly - it's actually 2002).

http://www.eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/

Jack

Post by **AnneM** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:25 pm

hi Johan

It was not an unwritten agreement but a legal obligation. Possible however that he did not fulfil it unfortunately and equally possible that no-one ever checked up!

Anne

TalkingScot.com

Did Uncle James grab the children's inheritance?.....

Did Uncle James grab the children's inheritance?.....

Inheritance money in 1887