Talk:Swynfen will case

Inaccurate sources
I've found that while the original will dispute is accurate to the cited source, Kingston (1923), primary sources starkly contradict the brief case summary that Kingston provides. See for example this ruling, one of many issued in the case, though I'm still looking for whichever is the most authoritative. These rulings reveal that Kingston grossly misinterpreted the dispute: Only a single estate was at issue. That estate was valued at £60,000 or £65,000 depending on which primary source you read (unclear if this reflects inconsistency in recording the dispute, or inconsistency in the evaluations themselves). The dispute between Mrs. Swinfen and Captain Swinfen regarded whether Mrs. Swinfen's father-in-law, the Captain's uncle, had been legally competent to execute his will. The decedent had left his estate to his son, but the son having predeceased, the decedent revised his will to leave his estate instead to his son's widow. The matter of valuation arose in later litigation concerning the enforceability of the settlement agreement made without Mrs. Swinfen's authority. She complained that the will entitled her to an estate valued at £60,000, but the settlement agreement offered her only (what her attorney calculated to be worth) £10,000. And thus she insisted on receiving the entire estate. So essentially she was complaining, "the will promised me an estate worth £60,000, and I demand Swinfen hall". Kingston confused the matter and thought that Swinfen hall and the estate in the will, worth £60,000, were two separate entities. I'm not yet sure what to do with this. I'm hoping I can find a secondary source that got the facts correct. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)