| 1346.231rs |
1346 |
Common Pleas |
Dower |
Dowere |
| Mich. |
20 |
Edw. 3 |
38 |
RS 321-323 |
Skipwyth, William de Sjt (for D)
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Skipwyth, William de Sjt
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Skipwyth, William de Sjt
Richemund, Peter de Sjt (for P)
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Richemund, Peter de Sjt
Skipwyth, William de Sjt
Willoughby, Richard JCP
Skipwyth, William de Sjt
Richemund, Peter de Sjt
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Richemund, Peter de Sjt
Skipwyth, William de Sjt
Richemund, Peter de Sjt
Skipwyth, William de Sjt
the Court |
|
|
|
|
|
|
P., vill of
S., hundred of
R., fee of |
|
| Fitzherbert Auncien Demene 25 |
|
|
| Un brief de Dowere fust porte des tenementz en P. -- Skip. dit qe touz les tenementz deinz Lundrede de |
60 |
| Summary: A writ of Dower was brought of tenements in P. The defendant said that all of the tenements within the hundred of S., except the fee of R., were ancient demesne, and said that the tenements in demand were within the hundred, and outside that fee, and so the tenancy was ancient demesne, and he said that he did not understand that they would hold that plea in this Court of a tenancy of such a nature. Willoughby JCP said that every tenancy that was ancient demesne must be regardant to some manor, and it would be of record in Domesday that the manor was ancient demesne; therefore, unless the defendant showed how this was parcel of some manor, this was otherwise no plea. The defendant said that, if he would say that the land was ancient demesne, without anything more, it would be sufficient. Willoughby JCP said that it would not be sufficient; therefore he told the defendant to see whether he would say anything else. The defendant then said that the whole vill of P., in which the writ was brought, was ancient demesne, except the fee of R., and he said that the land demanded was outside that fee, and so, as before, that it was ancient demesne. The plaintiff said, again, as before, since the defendant did not allege that this tenancy was parcel of any manor, judgment whether etc. Willoughby JCP said that, as to that, the defendant had said to the plaintiff what was sufficient, because it availed as much to say that the tenements were in such a vill, which was ancient demesne, as to say that they were parcel of such a manor which was ancient demesne; therefore he told the plaintiff to answer. The plaintiff then said that the vill was not ancient demesne; ready etc., by record. The defendant said that he had tendered the averment that the land demanded was ancient demesne, and the plaintiff did not answer to that; judgment. Willoughby JCP asked the defendant if he wished to have an averment in general terms on a matter that fell to be proved byi record. He said that no, certainly the defendant would not have it. The defendant said that he had said that the hundred of S. was ancient demesne, except the fee of R., and that the vill in which the demand was made was within the hundred of S. and outside the fee, and he would aver that as to the hundred, if the plaintiff would deny it; therefore the plaintiff should not be received to take issue that the vill was not ancient demesne, since he did not deny that the hundred was ancient demesne. The plaintiff said that the defendant should not be received to say that the hundred was ancient demesne, because previously he had said so, and, because he could not allege that the tenancy was ancient demesne without representing it to be parcel of some manor in the vill, he was discharged as to that; the defendant therefore said then that the whole vill was ancient demesne, the contrary of which the plaintiff had offered to aver by record; therefore etc. Willoughby JCP said that the defendant said at the beginning, and still did, that the hundred was ancient demesne, and that the vill was within the hundred, and therefore the plaintiff should not have an issue on the vill without replying as to the hundred; therefore he told the plaintiff to answer. And so Willoughby JCP acted contrary to the ruling that he previously gave to the party. The plaintiff said that the hundred was not ancient demesne; ready etc. by record. The defendant said that he would imparl as to that. And as to one tenant he said that the plaintiff should not have dower because, he said, the demandant's (plaintiff's) husband assigned this third part to his mother to hold in the name of dower in respect of an earlier endowment completed (deservy); and the defendant said that the mother survived the plaintiff's husband; judgment whether she should have dower of that third part. The plaintiff said that she did not confess the assignment, but she said that her husband was seised in his demesne as of fee, and died seised of such an estate; ready etc. The defendant said that she should not be admitted to that without showing how he became seised. And the averment was taken by compulsion of the Court, without showing how the husband became seised. And this was extraordinary (Et hoc mirum) etc. |
BL MS Harleian 741
Isham MS |
|
|
|
| Luke Owen Pike, Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the Third: Year XX (Second Part), Rolls Series no. 31, part B, vol. 15 (London 1911), pp. 320-323 |
|
