APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101963426


From: "Brenda Dougall Merriman, CGRS, CGL" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Sources: Original vs. Derivative
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:57:19 -0500
References: <20041201074748.36187.qmail@web52910.mail.yahoo.com> <002701c4d809$d256ddb0$6400a8c0@MAIN>


If this is not ad nauseam .. In my neck of the woods, we consider a will as
original when it is signed by the testator (not a register copy or a clerk's
copy) or his mark. It is likely what Americans refer to as a "loose paper"
and not a clerk's copy per se or found in a book/register. But there is
always the possibility that the deceased testator made more than one signed
copy. This may be dependent on the time period, of course. In the 20th
century we are more aware of several copies being made and signed. For
instance, one of them maybe went into safekeeping with a lawyer/attorney,
the testator himself or family kept one, maybe the executors had copies, and
etc.

Does this account for what Virginia refers to as differences in wording or
dates? Which is the one that was submitted for probate? Does the probate
file hold the original hand- or type-written (signed) will, or a copy
handwritten or carbon-copy paper? Does it matter -- are they all "original"
because they may have been signed/executed at the same time?

Just had to ask,
Brenda in Toronto


----- Original Message -----
From: "Virginia L. Aldridge" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:56 PM
Subject: [APG] Sources: Original vs. Derivative


> snip<
> You had a good point. I had a researcher search for a will in AL. He found
> a book (an old one) that was the will book for that time frame and copied
> the handwritten instrument for me and sent it to me. Then he was informed
> the book (though old) was not the original will book for that time frame.
> After some searching he found the original(this book had paper that
> reminded him of cloth) and copied the will (again a handwritten
> instrument). On reading each document I noted the original had a different
> date and slight difference in wording. So what seems to be an original may
> not be an original, however if we had not been told of the existence of
> the 'original' how would we have known we did not have the Original
> Source.


This thread: