Reasons of Appeal, John Peters
Title
Reasons of Appeal, John Peters
Description
Upon the Decree of the Hon. Benjamin Greenleaf Esq. Judge of the Court aforesaid ordaining constituting & appointing Benjamin Wilkins Jr. of Middleton in said County Yeoman, Administrator of all the Goods Chattels Rights & Credits that were of of John Wilkins late of Middleton aforesaid Gentleman Deceased, with the Will of the said John Wilkins annexed – and granting Letters of Administration for the purpose aforesaid – John Peters of Middleton aforesaid, Husbandman, a Legatee in the said Will named here makes and Claims, an Appeal from the to his Excellency John Hancock Esq. Governor, and the Hon. the Council The Supreme Court of Probate for the Commonwealth aforesaid – And for Reasons of such Appeal the said John Peters here files in the Register’s Office of the said Court of Probate for the County aforesaid, these following – viz:
first – The said Benjamin Wilkins Jr. was named as Executor of the said Deceased’s Will, but when the same was presented for Probate he refused to accept the aforesaid Trust, & also refused to accept the Trust of Administrator on the said Deceased’s Estate, when the same Will was disproved by the Decree of the said Judge of Probate, which reduced the widow of the Deceased to the Necessity of providing some other Person to take upon them the Care & management of said Estate, subject to the Incumbrances & Trusts with which it was left charged; and that in Consequence of the said Benjamin Wilkins’ refusal of said Trust, this Appellant, at the earnest sollicitation of the said widow took a power of Attorney from her, & endeavoured to discharge the Intention of the Testator as far as he was able, during pending the Appeal from the decree of the said Judge of Probate disproving said Will, with Expectation that on Case whether said Will was set up or not, Administration would afterwards be granted to him, as it was but equitable should be the Case. And so great were the Incumbrances to said Estate, by being charged with the maintainance & support of the said Widow & an Idiot child during their natural Lives, that the said Benjamin Wilkins Jr. to whom the fee of said Estate was devised in said Will charged as aforesaid, rather than be subjected to the trouble & inconvenience of discharging said Trust, quitclaimed the his Right & Title to the Estate aforesaid to the said Widow in fee that she might be enabled to convey it to some other Person who would be willing to accept the Trust. She accordingly conveyed it to the Appellant, who entered into sufficient Bonds to discharge conditioned for the comfortable & support of the said Widow & Child. Na The Child is since Dead, a Circumstance which induces the Appellant is induced to believe was the reason why the said Benjamin is now willing & desirous to administer on the Estate. But the Widow is still living, and your Petitioner bound to support her. [I]t is therefore but just he should be possessed of all the Estate to do it with - and that that Administration ought not to be granted to any other.
2d That by virtue of said Letters of Administration said Benjamin[,] Ezra Putnam & a number of others have entered on a part the Appellants Land conveyed as aforesaid, & committed the most wanton Waste & Destruction. It is therefore highly inconvenient & hurtful to said Estate that the Administration of the personal Estate & stock &c should be in different hands from the Land & farm itself.
3d The Testator at time [of] his making his Will aforesaid expressed his desire, that if the Benjamin Wilkins Jr. should refuse the Trust of Executor, the Appellant should be appointed for that purpose.
4 The said Benjamin Wilkins is not the next of kin to the Deceased; and the said next of kin was never notified to appear & object to his appointment, or to accept & refuse it himself as by Law ought to have been done.
5 That the Decree aforesaid is illegal; because the granting Administration with the Will annexed, is but part of & consequential to the Judgement for approving & allowing the Will; & therefore the said Letters of Administration with the Will annexed ought to have been granted by the Supreme Court of Probate who approved, & not by the Judge of Probate who disproved the Will.
[John Peters, signature]
October 30th, 1780
first – The said Benjamin Wilkins Jr. was named as Executor of the said Deceased’s Will, but when the same was presented for Probate he refused to accept the aforesaid Trust, & also refused to accept the Trust of Administrator on the said Deceased’s Estate, when the same Will was disproved by the Decree of the said Judge of Probate, which reduced the widow of the Deceased to the Necessity of providing some other Person to take upon them the Care & management of said Estate, subject to the Incumbrances & Trusts with which it was left charged; and that in Consequence of the said Benjamin Wilkins’ refusal of said Trust, this Appellant, at the earnest sollicitation of the said widow took a power of Attorney from her, & endeavoured to discharge the Intention of the Testator as far as he was able, during pending the Appeal from the decree of the said Judge of Probate disproving said Will, with Expectation that on Case whether said Will was set up or not, Administration would afterwards be granted to him, as it was but equitable should be the Case. And so great were the Incumbrances to said Estate, by being charged with the maintainance & support of the said Widow & an Idiot child during their natural Lives, that the said Benjamin Wilkins Jr. to whom the fee of said Estate was devised in said Will charged as aforesaid, rather than be subjected to the trouble & inconvenience of discharging said Trust, quitclaimed the his Right & Title to the Estate aforesaid to the said Widow in fee that she might be enabled to convey it to some other Person who would be willing to accept the Trust. She accordingly conveyed it to the Appellant, who entered into sufficient Bonds to discharge conditioned for the comfortable & support of the said Widow & Child. Na The Child is since Dead, a Circumstance which induces the Appellant is induced to believe was the reason why the said Benjamin is now willing & desirous to administer on the Estate. But the Widow is still living, and your Petitioner bound to support her. [I]t is therefore but just he should be possessed of all the Estate to do it with - and that that Administration ought not to be granted to any other.
2d That by virtue of said Letters of Administration said Benjamin[,] Ezra Putnam & a number of others have entered on a part the Appellants Land conveyed as aforesaid, & committed the most wanton Waste & Destruction. It is therefore highly inconvenient & hurtful to said Estate that the Administration of the personal Estate & stock &c should be in different hands from the Land & farm itself.
3d The Testator at time [of] his making his Will aforesaid expressed his desire, that if the Benjamin Wilkins Jr. should refuse the Trust of Executor, the Appellant should be appointed for that purpose.
4 The said Benjamin Wilkins is not the next of kin to the Deceased; and the said next of kin was never notified to appear & object to his appointment, or to accept & refuse it himself as by Law ought to have been done.
5 That the Decree aforesaid is illegal; because the granting Administration with the Will annexed, is but part of & consequential to the Judgement for approving & allowing the Will; & therefore the said Letters of Administration with the Will annexed ought to have been granted by the Supreme Court of Probate who approved, & not by the Judge of Probate who disproved the Will.
[John Peters, signature]
October 30th, 1780
Source
ECPF 29905, americanancestors
{Commonwealth of Massachusetts}
{Essex County – Court of Probate}
{Commonwealth of Massachusetts}
{Essex County – Court of Probate}
Date
1780-10-20
Citation
“Reasons of Appeal, John Peters,” Wheatley Peters Project, accessed October 17, 2026, https://wheatleypeters.xn--lamh-bpa.org/items/show/5.