[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In 1659, Rose Scotcher requested that according to the Custome of the Province shee have allowed her neces-sary furniture for her Chamber before the Estate be devided. She knewthat widows were usually given, if not a full dower third, then at least asmall piece of their husbands estate before the heirs divided the remain-ing portion and she wanted legal possession of her share.Two yearslater, when Ruth Knowles informed the court that her husband s estateowed more debts than it could pay, she sought such maintainance as isusually allowed to other widdows for thaire relefe. Knowles understoodand demanded that the magistrates adhere to the local practice of grant-ing a widow her bed, bedclothes, a few household goods, her wearingapparel, and some provisions when an estate could neither pay the de-ceased s debts nor provide his widow with her dower.36 Although the law-makers and magistrates may have seen these pleas as requests for charity,widows saw them as customary rights.The following cases demonstrate how widows pushed for their legalrights.When Edward Commins s widow attempted to sell part of the landhe had bequeathed her, the buyer refused to perform the bargain unlessthe Lord Proprietor gave him permission.At question was whether thewidow could Sell the Said Land from her Children. The key phrase hereis from her children. As in England, widows were not their husbandslegal heirs, and the widow Commins s sale of land worried the buyers.They sought confirmation that the land they bought from her would besecure when the children came of age and demanded their property rightsin their fathers estate.Because Edward Commins had bequeathed theland to his wife without condition, the court ruled that she could makeSale thereof Lawfully. In this case, although her interests potentially con-flicted with her children s interests, the magistrates adhered to EdwardCommins s will and gave her the power to sell the land in question.Justbefore she was to remarry, Mary Mulliken gave her three children land,livestock, and household goods.She declared that her personal estatewould be divided among her children at her death and, more important,that the Seat of land.with all howses Edifices buildings Orchards and 60 Widows and the LawGardens she currently lived on would be first for her own proper use and that she then would be free to give it to.whosoever I shall likeof or think fitt. 37 Mary understood two key points about the property shebrought into the marriage: her new husband could take legal possessionof the personal property and could bar her children from their share oftheir father s estate by ruining or selling it, but he could not sell it or be-queath the real property.Her deed of gift protected her rights and herchildren s rights to the property.She reaffirmed her legal control over theestate that she brought to the marriage; in the end, she alone would judgethe character of the recipients, and she alone would be responsible for herchildren s future.Perhaps wishing to eliminate the flexibility of probate law that the wid-ows Scotcher, Commins, Knowles, and Mulliken used to their advantage,the legislators stepped in.The 1671 Act for the Preservation of OrphansEstates declared that previous laws were very defective & noe waiessufficient for maintaining the economic well-being of children whosefathers had died.In addition to stating that all wills shall be firme andInviolable, the act itself specified two important provisions: in the eventof intestacy, the widow became administrator of her deceased husband sestate, and, after debts were paid, the widow received one-third of the es-tate, and the Rest is to be divided amongst the Children. This law, whileostensibly expanding widows rights, also could be meaningless for awidow whose husband died heavily in debt.Although Maryland countedslaves as personalty and thus they could be sold to pay debts according tocommon law, the legislators declared that slaves could not be used to paythe deceased s debts if there are sufficient other goods. Maryland law-makers tried to prevent the ravage of a widow s estate by prohibiting thesale or rental of slaves unless necessary.Moreover, granting widows a fullthird share of all slaves absolutely meant that widows possessed and couldbequeath a significant source of wealth and power.38 Yet, the law gave pri-ority to creditors needs over widows needs and aimed at preserving theestate of the children and not at safeguarding the economic well-being ofthe widow.It marked an important step toward the creation of a better-defined boundary for widows.Or did it?That widows control over estates continued to plague the colonyor at least the leaders of the colony is suggested by the 1681 Act forthe Better Administration of Justice in Probate of Wills, Granting Ad-ministrations, Recovery of Legacies, and Securing Filial Portions. 39 Thelawmakers reiterated their belief that itt is most necessary that there Widows and the Law 61bee a setled succession from the dead to the Liveing. Using the gen-dered language of family, they claimed that Certainety is the Mother ofRepose. Like the earlier act, the law provided that, after the deceased sdebts and funeral expenses were paid, the widow was to receive one fullThird parte thereof and the rest was to be equally divided among thechildren.Again, slaves were not to be used to pay debts.This act wascontinued in 1682, 1684, 1686, 1688, and 1692 a repetition that in itselfsuggests how difficult it was maintain to a clear legal boundary aroundwidows lives.40An amendment to the Act for the Better Administration of Justice passed in 1695 and again in 1699 stipulated that widows who were be-queathed portions of their husbands estate had to either take that por-tion in full satisfaction of their dower rights or refuse their legacies andaccept their third of their husbands real and personal estate as Widdowswhose husbands dye Intestate. This amendment was ostensibly passed tosave the children from utter Ruine. 41 According to lawmakers in colonialMaryland, all of these acts failed to prevent the waste, sale, or destruc-tion of orphans real estate.They believed that even though such orphanswere the children of p[er]sons of greate estates whilst liveing, the estatethat accrued to them on reaching age was generally of much less valuethan when initially probated.The lawmakers established clear guidelinesunder which guardians could clear and plant only a portion of the totalestate large enough to raise, keep, and maintain the children until theyreached the age at which they could rightfully take possession of the es-tate themselves.42In 1705, the assembly amended the act yet again.This time theychanged English dower law, providing that husbands could not negatetheir widows dower in real estate by bequeathing them part of their per-sonal estate.The justification for the changes demonstrates concerns ofMaryland lawmakers:many men have bequeathed and devised or hereafter may bequeathor devise to their wives by their Last Wills a Considerable part oftheir personall Estate intending no doubt but not expressing thatsuch bequest or devise should be in full of such wives part portionor third part of the Testators Estate and yet such wives widows andrelicts have not only claim d such bequest and devise as legacys buthave farther claim d their part of the remaining Estate of their deceasedhusbands[ [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.In 1659, Rose Scotcher requested that according to the Custome of the Province shee have allowed her neces-sary furniture for her Chamber before the Estate be devided. She knewthat widows were usually given, if not a full dower third, then at least asmall piece of their husbands estate before the heirs divided the remain-ing portion and she wanted legal possession of her share.Two yearslater, when Ruth Knowles informed the court that her husband s estateowed more debts than it could pay, she sought such maintainance as isusually allowed to other widdows for thaire relefe. Knowles understoodand demanded that the magistrates adhere to the local practice of grant-ing a widow her bed, bedclothes, a few household goods, her wearingapparel, and some provisions when an estate could neither pay the de-ceased s debts nor provide his widow with her dower.36 Although the law-makers and magistrates may have seen these pleas as requests for charity,widows saw them as customary rights.The following cases demonstrate how widows pushed for their legalrights.When Edward Commins s widow attempted to sell part of the landhe had bequeathed her, the buyer refused to perform the bargain unlessthe Lord Proprietor gave him permission.At question was whether thewidow could Sell the Said Land from her Children. The key phrase hereis from her children. As in England, widows were not their husbandslegal heirs, and the widow Commins s sale of land worried the buyers.They sought confirmation that the land they bought from her would besecure when the children came of age and demanded their property rightsin their fathers estate.Because Edward Commins had bequeathed theland to his wife without condition, the court ruled that she could makeSale thereof Lawfully. In this case, although her interests potentially con-flicted with her children s interests, the magistrates adhered to EdwardCommins s will and gave her the power to sell the land in question.Justbefore she was to remarry, Mary Mulliken gave her three children land,livestock, and household goods.She declared that her personal estatewould be divided among her children at her death and, more important,that the Seat of land.with all howses Edifices buildings Orchards and 60 Widows and the LawGardens she currently lived on would be first for her own proper use and that she then would be free to give it to.whosoever I shall likeof or think fitt. 37 Mary understood two key points about the property shebrought into the marriage: her new husband could take legal possessionof the personal property and could bar her children from their share oftheir father s estate by ruining or selling it, but he could not sell it or be-queath the real property.Her deed of gift protected her rights and herchildren s rights to the property.She reaffirmed her legal control over theestate that she brought to the marriage; in the end, she alone would judgethe character of the recipients, and she alone would be responsible for herchildren s future.Perhaps wishing to eliminate the flexibility of probate law that the wid-ows Scotcher, Commins, Knowles, and Mulliken used to their advantage,the legislators stepped in.The 1671 Act for the Preservation of OrphansEstates declared that previous laws were very defective & noe waiessufficient for maintaining the economic well-being of children whosefathers had died.In addition to stating that all wills shall be firme andInviolable, the act itself specified two important provisions: in the eventof intestacy, the widow became administrator of her deceased husband sestate, and, after debts were paid, the widow received one-third of the es-tate, and the Rest is to be divided amongst the Children. This law, whileostensibly expanding widows rights, also could be meaningless for awidow whose husband died heavily in debt.Although Maryland countedslaves as personalty and thus they could be sold to pay debts according tocommon law, the legislators declared that slaves could not be used to paythe deceased s debts if there are sufficient other goods. Maryland law-makers tried to prevent the ravage of a widow s estate by prohibiting thesale or rental of slaves unless necessary.Moreover, granting widows a fullthird share of all slaves absolutely meant that widows possessed and couldbequeath a significant source of wealth and power.38 Yet, the law gave pri-ority to creditors needs over widows needs and aimed at preserving theestate of the children and not at safeguarding the economic well-being ofthe widow.It marked an important step toward the creation of a better-defined boundary for widows.Or did it?That widows control over estates continued to plague the colonyor at least the leaders of the colony is suggested by the 1681 Act forthe Better Administration of Justice in Probate of Wills, Granting Ad-ministrations, Recovery of Legacies, and Securing Filial Portions. 39 Thelawmakers reiterated their belief that itt is most necessary that there Widows and the Law 61bee a setled succession from the dead to the Liveing. Using the gen-dered language of family, they claimed that Certainety is the Mother ofRepose. Like the earlier act, the law provided that, after the deceased sdebts and funeral expenses were paid, the widow was to receive one fullThird parte thereof and the rest was to be equally divided among thechildren.Again, slaves were not to be used to pay debts.This act wascontinued in 1682, 1684, 1686, 1688, and 1692 a repetition that in itselfsuggests how difficult it was maintain to a clear legal boundary aroundwidows lives.40An amendment to the Act for the Better Administration of Justice passed in 1695 and again in 1699 stipulated that widows who were be-queathed portions of their husbands estate had to either take that por-tion in full satisfaction of their dower rights or refuse their legacies andaccept their third of their husbands real and personal estate as Widdowswhose husbands dye Intestate. This amendment was ostensibly passed tosave the children from utter Ruine. 41 According to lawmakers in colonialMaryland, all of these acts failed to prevent the waste, sale, or destruc-tion of orphans real estate.They believed that even though such orphanswere the children of p[er]sons of greate estates whilst liveing, the estatethat accrued to them on reaching age was generally of much less valuethan when initially probated.The lawmakers established clear guidelinesunder which guardians could clear and plant only a portion of the totalestate large enough to raise, keep, and maintain the children until theyreached the age at which they could rightfully take possession of the es-tate themselves.42In 1705, the assembly amended the act yet again.This time theychanged English dower law, providing that husbands could not negatetheir widows dower in real estate by bequeathing them part of their per-sonal estate.The justification for the changes demonstrates concerns ofMaryland lawmakers:many men have bequeathed and devised or hereafter may bequeathor devise to their wives by their Last Wills a Considerable part oftheir personall Estate intending no doubt but not expressing thatsuch bequest or devise should be in full of such wives part portionor third part of the Testators Estate and yet such wives widows andrelicts have not only claim d such bequest and devise as legacys buthave farther claim d their part of the remaining Estate of their deceasedhusbands[ [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]