| 1372.070 |
1372 |
|
Praecipe quod reddat |
Praecipe quod reddat
Grants
Faits |
| Mich. |
46 |
Edw. 3 |
2 |
22a-22b |
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay (for D)
Hasty, Henry de Sjt (for P)
Fyncheden, William de CJCP FInchden
Hasty, Henry de Sjt
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay
Wychyngham, William de JCP Wich
Fyncheden, William de CJCP |
|
|
|
|
|
W., hypothetical name
R., hypothetical name
John, hypothetical name
Robert, hypothetical name
William, hypothetical name |
|
|
Brooke Grauntes (not Grants) 22
Brooke Faits 82 |
|
|
| Praecipe quod reddat vers un Mary, &c. @ Persay, dit, Que celuy que port le briefe, relessa, & confirma a |
24 |
| Praecipe quod reddat against one Mary. The defendant said that the plaintiff had released and confirmed to this Mary and to her first husband, by the name of his wife Mariot, and to the heirs of their two bodies, all the right etc., and that the same woman, who was baptised Maria, was called throughout her whole youth Mariot or Marion, according to the usage of the country, and she demanded judgment if the plaintiff should have an action. The plaintiff said that the Court saw plainly how his writ was brought against Marie, and the defendant did not plead anything against him, and the deed that she put forward, which was made to Mariot, could not be understood to Mary, against whom his writ was brought, and he demanded judgment, particularly since the defendant did not deny that her proper name was as his writ supposed. Fyncheden CJCP, to the same effect, told the defendant that her deed said that the release and the confirmation were made to Mariot and to her first husband and to the heirs of their two bodies, and the husband was dead without issue, so she had only a term of life, and the deed could not extend to the defendant, by the name of Mary, so it seemed to him that she pleaded nothing against him. The plaintiff said that there was such a name Mariot by name of baptism in the country, as well as Marie, and he said that she had the name Marie by baptism, and she was known by such name, so that the deed that was made to Mariot could not extend to her, and to that which the defendant said, that the release was made to a certain one and to his wife Mariot in fee tail, he was dead without issue, so void against him. A serjeant said that a confirmation made to a certain person and to his wife, without naming by the name W. of baptism, was good for the wife during her life. Wychyngham JCP said that if you release by the name of R., and you are known by such name, although you were baptised by the name of John, it would be harsh (fort) to avoid the release, because if one were arraigned by the name of Robert, and indicted in that way, although he alleged that he had the name William, it would be inquired if he was the same person. Fyncheden CJCP said that in some cases one could be baptised by one name and confirmed by another name, and this must be shown etc. The demandant (plaintiff) demurred in judgment if he would have the advantage of the deed by surmise of another name. |
|
