| Appeals to the Privy Council |
| Report No. ANT_1726_03 |
|
Antigua |
| Case Name Long |
Henry Lyons v executors of Henry Lyons, and Nathaniel Crump, Michael Arnold, Nicholas Lynch, John Teale (the four being the executors of Jeffrey Lyons), Elizabeth Lyons, and Sarah Lyons | |
| Case Name Long |
Executors of Henry Lyons, and Nathaniel Crump, Michael Arnold, Nicholas Lynch, John Teale (the four being the executors of Jeffrey Lyons), Elizabeth Lyons, and Sarah Lyons v Henry Lyons |
Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial Series |
| APC Citation | v.3 [104] p.133–134 (9 Aug. 1726 – 31 May 1727) |
| PC Register Citation | George I v.5 (Sept. 1724 – May 1727) p.277, 320, 354, 355, 356, 360–361, 364–365: PC 2/89/277, 320, 354, 355, 356, 360–361, 364–365 |
Colonial Courts |
|
Chancery – 4 Dec. 1725 |
Participants |
|
Arnold, Michael, respondent/appellant (executor of Jeffrey Lyons) |
|
Crump, Nathaniel, respondent/appellant (executor of Jeffrey Lyons) |
|
Lynch, Nicholas, respondent/appellant (executor of Jeffrey Lyons) |
|
Lyons, Elizabeth, respondent/appellant (widow of Jeffrey) |
|
Lyons, Henry (1), deceased |
|
Lyons, Henry (2), appellant/respondent |
|
Lyons, Jeffrey, deceased (husband of Elizabeth, father of Sarah) |
|
Lyons, Sarah, respondent/appellant (daughter of Jeffrey) |
|
Teale, John, respondent/appellant (executor of Jeffrey Lyons) |
Description |
Concerning an estate, including debts and dower. |
Disposition |
Decree affirmed with variations; cross appeal admitted, later dismissed. |
Notes |
Related to another Privy Council appeal: |
References in Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Plantations |
Table of Cases (Lyons v Lyons) |
|
|
DOCUMENTATION |
Printed Cases |
Not found |
Privy Council Documents in PC 1 at The National Archives at Kew |
| TNA Document | Committee reports – 11 May 1727 and 18 May 1727 (PC 1/48/23) | view_Document |
| Notes about Document |
Referenced in APC v.6 [379] p.188 |
|
|
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH |
The relationship between Jeffrey Lyons and the two Henry Lyonses is never quite stated, but the committee report, as summarized in the PC register, suggests that he was the son of Henry (1) and the brother and heir of Henry (2). How Elizabeth’s dower ended up in the estate of Henry (1) is not explained. If we remember the common-law rule that the widow is not entitled to possession of her dower until it was assigned to her by her husband’s heir, then we would expect that Elizabeth’s dower would be in the estate of Henry (2) not of Henry (1). Considering how rare common-law dower was in this period, however, perhaps we should imagine that Elizabeth’s dower was not common-law dower, but a jointure, which the elder Henry had promised to pay and which remained a debt of his estate. The Privy Council’s decree affirms the Chancery court’s order that Elizabeth is entitled to ‘dower’ out of Henry (1)’s estate, but subjects it to a proportional reduction by the debts of the estate and the legacies made in the will. Compare JAM_1768_02, where the committee report says that the widow’s annuity in lieu of dower should come out of the estate of her late husband, but the APC mistakenly says that it should come out of that of another man. See Additional Research on JAM_1768_02. |
CD |