Image: Pixabay. Public Domain.
Wealthy Financier William Jennens Dies in June 1798
William Jennens, an unmarried and reclusive financier, passed away on 19th June 1798 aged ninety-seven. He was at his substantial property Acton Place in the village of Acton, Suffolk, in southeast England.
The "richest commoner in England" died with an accrued wealth that exceeded £1 million. His annual income was approximately £40000. In 21st-century terms, this gave him an annual income of over £4.8 million or $6 million.
He made his fortune trading in London and by loaning money to gamblers in casinos at eye-wateringly high rates of interest.
His prosperous father, Robert Jennens, purchased and remodelled Acton Place in 1708. When William inherited the property in 1725, he ceased renovations, and he lived in a few sparsely furnished basement rooms with his dogs and a couple of servants. William was awarded the sobriquets of the Miser, the Rich and the Miser of Acton.
William Jennens' will was found in a coat pocket, according to The Gentleman's Magazine. It was: "...sealed, but not signed; [owing to] leaving his spectacles at home when he went to his solicitor for the purpose of duly executing it."
117 years of legal battles followed as numerous claims were made for his estate.
William Jennens' Unsigned Will
It was a pity that, as the story goes, William forgot his spectacles on the day that he was due to sign his will at his solicitor's office, and so it remained unsigned. For over a century, the great Jennens inheritance was claimed, counter-claimed and disputed by relations and descendants, people named Jennens, Jennings, Jennins and other logical variations of the spelling from the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and the U.S.A.
There has long been a question about why William Jennens "forgot" his spectacles and why he made no further attempts to sign his will. Was he hoping to create chaos for his relations after his death? If so, he far exceeded any imaginings.
The intestate status of the late William's will meant that his case was referred to the Court of Chancery so that appointed judges could rule on who the true heir to his estate was.
1821: Lady Andover and the Earl of Beauchamp
The court declared that young relation George Augustus William Curzon was the heir to William Jennens' considerable fortune. His mother administered his inheritance for him, and when George died young, the fortune passed to his younger brother Richard William Penn Curzon. Accusations were made that Richard was illegitimate and that he was the son of a woman named Anne Oake.
In 1821 the inheritance passed to William's next of kin, Mary, Lady Andover, and William Lygon, 1st Earl of Beauchamp. Both parties were subsequently disputed as heirs because they were the descendants of another William Jennens in the family tree's expansive branches.
Their William died in 1803, not 1798. John Jennens, alive in the 17th century, married twice and two of his descendants were named Robert Jennens, and they died in 1725. Both Roberts had sons named William.
By 1849 Jennens Clubs were plentiful in the U.K. and Ireland. Many people named Jennens, Jennins or Jennings or with a potential link to the family met to discuss their claims to the fortune. Professional genealogists and lawyers were employed to help investigate and to prove the members' rights even though the date for legal action to be initiated (without proof of fraud) was far in the past.
The American Legal Claim: Jennens vs. Jennens
British army officer William Jennens, born in 1676, fought in the American Indian Wars, and he married American Mary Ann Pulliam. Their descendants and hopeful claimants mounted legal action in 1850, confident that they were entitled to a share of the Jennens fortune. The most prominent claimant was U.S. Secretary of State, Senator Henry Clay, William and Mary Ann's great-grandson.
Acton Place in Suffolk was largely demolished in 1825 by Lord Howe, a descendant of the original benefactor George Curzon's mother's family. All that remained of the property was one servant's wing.
In England in 1879, Messers Harrison and Willis compiled and published "The Great Jennens Case: Epitome of the History of the Jennens Family" on behalf of the Jennens family. This document was comprehensive at almost three hundred pages long.
Charles Dickens' Bleak House: Jarndyce Versus Jarndyce
Charles Dickens' serialised novel Bleak House was published in 1852 and 1853. The Jarndyce versus Jarndyce case in the story was very similar to the Jennens versus Jennens battle, at that time, over fifty years long.
In the first chapter, Dickens introduces the reader to the never-ending legal action:
The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out...
And so it was with the real case.
How Did the Jennens vs. Jennens Case End in 1915?
How did the case end? With a whimper.
The court case began when George III was the king, and it ended five monarchs later when George V was on the throne. The duration of the case and the large amounts of money that were siphoned from the estate to pay for legal action steadily drained the coffers.
By 1915 there was no inheritance left to quarrel about. William Jennens' estate was worthless, and the claimants went home empty-handed.
There were occasional claims after 1915, including one in New Zealand in 1929, but these met with no success for obvious reasons.
It was only the several generations of lawyers employed on the case that made a profit from Jennens versus Jennens.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment.