This narrative follows on from my latest Blog on Henry Taylor Yeoman and delves deeper into the estate of my Taylor family ancestors, uncovering new research that shines a light on an intriguing legal case.
Before getting into it, I think it is helpful to create a family tree to avoid any confusion about the main people involved.
A Complicated Matter
In 1821, Henry Taylor, a yeoman from Longton drafted his last will and testament. Henry’s will says that he divided his estate among his three sons: Henry Jnr, John and George. This article focuses on Henry’s son John.
At the time of Henry’s death in 1824 John was living at the Black Bull Inn owned by his father. Henry in his will gives the Black Bull to John but he includes a crucial proviso – that John must bequeath the said Public House and other lands and property to his son Henry upon his own death.
This point is significant because it reveals that John did not have complete ownership of the public house or other inherited assets. Instead, he possessed a life estate with a mandatory condition to transfer the Black Bull property, its associated lands and a ten-acre farm in Leyland following his father John’s passing.
Henry Taylor, yeoman, passed away in 1824, three years after the writing of this will.
Debtor
Now, here’s where the story takes an interesting turn.
In 1848, Henry, the son of John, found himself struggling with debt and ended up in the debtors’ prison at Lancaster Castle. His situation was one of insolvency, which means he owed money that he simply couldn’t repay when it was due, and his creditors were demanding what they were owed.
It’s not entirely clear when or how Henry found himself in debt, but historical records indicate that he and his family were living in Preston at the time of his imprisonment, specifically at the Royal Oak Inn before they moved to St John’s Street.
Prior to their time in Preston, Henry worked as an ale dealer in Clayton-le-Woods. Before that, the family lived at Moss House in Much Hoole, near Longton.
The Royal Oak, Preston
In April of 1848, Henry had an idea that was put to the magistrates of the town hall at Preston.
He wanted to save his stock assets at the Royal Oak by obtaining the value of said stock and earmarking it for his father-in-law Thomas Martindale to hold onto. An application was also made to transfer the license of the Royal Oak to the same Thomas Martindale. However, this plan to shield his assets from creditors failed when Thomas Dodd solicitor, opposed the application on the grounds that it was a fraudulent transaction.
Five months later, a meeting was set for Henry’s creditors. It was scheduled for 3pm sharp at the solicitor’s office located at No. 3 Butlers Court, Preston, on the 28th of September, 1848.
The meeting focused on the estate that Henry was set to inherit from his father, John.
The outcome of the meeting can be seen five weeks later when the Preston Chronicle published an article that revealed the upcoming auction details for Henry’s inheritance.
Image © THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
1855
Fast forward seven years, John Taylor, the innkeeper of the Black Bull Inn and Henry’s father, passed away at the age of sixty-nine.
In his last will and testament written a year after the above Auction, John specified that his personal estate should be left to his beloved widow, Mary, allowing her to continue living as she was until her own death, at which point the estate was to be sold and divided among their seven children.
One particularly important part of John’s will discusses his son Henry and the debt he had incurred.
I therefore charge my real estate for the benefit of the creditors of my said son, disposed of released and sold unto me for the sum of Two Hundred Pounds all the interest of my said son Henry Taylor, in reversion or expectancy, in the Inn or Public House situate in Longton…
In simple terms, John is saying that his son Henry is bankrupt and his creditors have seized his future interest in the Black Bull Inn. He is authorising his estate to pay those creditors £200 to buy back Henrys claim on the Black Bull. By paying the creditors, John’s estate clears Henrys claim, and John can now treat the Black Bull and attached lands as wholly-owned assets of his own estate, allowing him to put them into the trust for his wife Mary and their seven children.
After my research into these two Taylor Wills, I thought my project on the family estate and Henrys debt had wrapped up quietly, but then I stumbled upon an intriguing article from 1912 – fifty-seven years later. This unexpected find reignited my curiosity and opened up new avenues for exploring my Taylor family history further.
Howarth v Taylor
A Prolific Family
At the Palatine Chancery Court sitting in Manchester, on Tuesday Mr. F Willis Taylor the deputy of the Chancellor had before him further ensidertios an action. Howard v Taylor, yeoman of Longton, near Preston who died in July 1855. According to the provisions of his will the rents and profits of his real estate which included properties in Longton, Penwortham and elsewhere were to be divided annually among his seven children until the death of the last of them. On this event happening the whole was to be realised and divided among the issue and descendants of the children. John Taylor the last of the seven died in December 1908 and then the present action was then begun by Mrs Annie Howarth of Hutton, a beneficiary, asking the court to make an order that the real estate be sold and the proceeds be distributed as directed by the will.
Mr Firth said the matter was a complicated one. He appeared for something like 150 people who were interested in the estate. Mr Hodgson for two or three, and Mr McNab for others. The will had been subject for proceedings in the High Court as well as the Palatine Chancery Court, and the effect of the decisions was that the fund, which amounted to between £3000 and £4000 was divisible in thirds because only three of the Testators children had left issue. One had 100 descendants, another six, the third 43. Unfortunately, also something like half of the beneficiaries were infants and there would have to be about 75 separate accounts and comparatively small sums carried over. Eighteen or twenty of the beneficiaries were resident abroad.
His honour made an order providing for taxation of costs, payment of duties and the division of the fund amongst the persons entitled as set out in the schedule, the share of the infants be carried to separate accounts. – 1912
Chancery Court
Mrs. Annie Howarth, mentioned in the article, was actually Annie Taylor. She was the granddaughter of John Taylor, and the cousin of Henry Taylor, the debtor. Annie’s parents were Henry Taylor and Mary Taylor (widow of Robert Moss Esq).
To understand why Annie initiated court action we have to go back in time to 1849 and John’s Will.
Reading over John’s last will and testament, I picked out a significant point –
Upon his death John places the estate into a life trust for his wife, Mary, and names his youngest son, John, as one of the executors/trustees.
The will instructs that upon Mary’s death the trustees (including son John) were to sell the estate in order to distribute the funds amongst the seven children. Mary Taylor died in 1861, but the trustees failed to execute the sale as directed by the will. My research points to portions of the estate being sold, but not all and not the Black Bull public house and lands in Longton.
Why didn’t the trustees follow the instructions fully as set out in the Will? We can’t answer for certain, but I believe it was most likely because the inn and farms were valuable income-generating properties, which would have been an important financial resource for the remaining family members. It’s also possible that some family members were still residing in these properties, making an immediate sale impractical or emotionally challenging.
The newspaper article features an inaccuracy that I believe may also be a clue to support the most evident theory that the family was content with things as they were –
“…the rents and profits of his real estate which included properties in Longton, Penwortham and elsewhere were to be divided annually among his seven children until the death of the last of them.”
The article is correct that the rents and profits of the estate were to be divided annually among the seven children, an arrangement to support the children while the widow, Mary, was alive.
The article is inaccurate when it says this annual division was to last “until the death of the last of them”, as the Will explicitly states that the trust for sale was to be triggered upon the death, or second marriage of Mary, when the entire estate was then to be sold and the proceeds distributed as a lump sum.
Contentment with Income
In the time period between Mary Taylor’s passing in 1861 until the legal proceedings in 1912, any one of the estate’s beneficiaries could have requested to have the estate sold. However, it appears that the legal action was only triggered after John Taylor (the son), and the last surviving trustee, passed away in 1908.
The Final Trigger
John Taylor, the last surviving child of John and Mary, and crucially the last remaining executor of his father’s estate passed away in 1908. As the last surviving trustee, the duty to resolve his fathers unsold estate passed to the executor of his own will, which my research revealed was Mr. Thomas Howarth, husband of Annie Howarth (the plaintiff). Following John’s death, Thomas Howarth was compelled to finally address the long-standing legal obligation of the unresolved 1849 trust.
Complex Case
Due to the delay in the sale of the estate, the list of John Taylor’s descendants was able to grow. Pair this with some ambiguous wording in the will about the beneficiaries beyond John and Mary’s seven children, and the Chancery Court had to make a final court ruling on what was meant by the will and who was to benefit.
“…and should any of my said children be dead without issue, then shall his or their share or shares be equally divided amongst the rest.”
To complicate things further, John made special provisions for his children that passed away without having children themselves. Four of the seven passed away without offspring, which created a complex legal challenge. The court was tasked with carefully tracing and identifying every legal descendant from the three children who did have issue and then meticulously redistributing the estate’s shares from the childless branches.
The newspaper article also highlights the number of infants involved in the case – the court would need to carefully manage the inheritance shares for 75 young beneficiaries until they reached adulthood.
Taking all this into consideration – the original breach of trust, where trustees neglected to sell the estate for over half a century, combined with the will’s intricate provisions and ambiguous language around “descendants” it becomes clear why the case ultimately necessitated a comprehensive legal action in the Chancery court.
In 1912, in the quiet halls of the Palatine Chancery Court in Manchester, the Taylor descendants were finally forced to close the books on a decades-long, multi-generational saga.
As we can read from the article shared earlier in this narrative, the Court of Appeal interpreted the ambiguous phrase in the will to mean all and every living descendant must share the final assets. At the heart of the matter stood a single property – the Black Bull inn in Longton, which the family refused to sell for 47 years, a reluctance that ultimately required a High Court decree and an army of lawyers just to divide a few thousand pounds among 150 waiting descendants.
Following the courts ruling, what was remaining of John’s estate was put up for sale. A newspaper article listing the outcome of the auction reveals that the Black Bull inn was once again withdrawn from the sale at the last moment.
The sale of the remainder of the estate including various parcels of land, a farm and a cottage raised £2,733.
Mr. Samuel Parker conducted a sale of property, situated in Longton, Much Hoole, and Penwortham, on Thursday, at the Black Bull Inn, Longton. The Black Bull Inn, Longton, containing la. lr. 26p, with aggregate yearly rental of £70, was withdrawn.
To be continued.
A Courtroom Story of 150 Interconnected Lives
Do you have a family connection to this story? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Feel free to reach out using the button below.
Further Reading – The Descendants