Boston University School of Law

Legal History: The Year Books

Record Detail

 
Previous Record Next Record
Image
For an image of this report text from the Vulgate Year Books Reprint, click here.
Seipp Number:
Year
Court
Writ
Marginal Heading
1481.098 1481 Common Pleas Dower
Term
Regnal Year
King: Plea Number Folio Number
Mich. (2nd) 21 Edw. 4 30 59b-60a
Serjeants/ Justices Plaintiff Surname Plaintiff First Name v. Defendent Surname Defendent First Name
Vavasour, John Sjt Vavis. (for D)
Bryan, Thomas CJCP Brian
Vavasour, John Sjt
the Justices
the Justices
Vavasour, John Sjt Vavis.
Dudley Edmond
Other Plaintiffs Other Names Places Other Defendents
Dudley, E., wife of Edmond and formerly wife of Sir J. Haringdon Haringdon, Sir J. (I), deceased first husband of plaintiff E.
Haringdon, T., father of Sir J. (I)
E., county of
Abridgements Cross-References Statutes
Fitzherbert Dower 15
Brooke Dower 75, Waiver de chose 26 
cross-referenced in 1486.032 = Pasch. 1 Hen. 7, pl. 3, fol. 17a-19b
1 Hen. 7, fol. 17 (twice)
1 Hen. 7, fol. 5, accord
18 Edw. 4, fol. 29
11 Hen. 4, fol. 86
4 Hen. 7, fol. 1
Perkins, Profitable Boke 72
46 Edw. 3, fol. 4
48 Edw. 3, fol. 11
12 Hen. 7, fol. 8 
 
Incipit (First Line) Number of Lines
En brief de Dower sue per Edmond Dudley, & E. sa femme jades le feme J. Haringdon Chivaler 18
Process and Pleading
Demandants (plaintiffs) second husband and wife (widow) demanded demanded her reasonable dower of various manors within a county of the endowment of demandant wife's deceased first husband.
Tenant (defendant) pleaded that demandant wife's deceased first husband was never seised (of an estate of which) he could give dower (endow).
Demandants replied that demandant wife's deceased first husband's father was seised of the manors in demesne as of fee, and died seised, after whose death the manors descended to demandant wife's deceased first husband as the father's son and heir, demandant wife then his wife, and (that her first husband had) no other entry (by) any other death.
it was moved (by tenant) that demandants should have concluded 'thus seised' and that demandant wife should waive the special matter.
Bryan CJCP said that demandants should not plead thus, that the special matter would be tried or that demandant wife could plead over what possession in law of which she was endowable, and demand judgment and pray her dower.
Demandant wife was driven to show that (her deceased former husband had) no other entry.
Demandants (plaintiffs) prayed to be advised of the conclusion (of the pleading).
At another day demandant wife made the conclusion that thus she was endowable by the law.
Tenant (defendant) said that demandant wife should have concluded, 'and thus seised of such an estate (of which she could be endowed).
The Justices held demadant wife's conclusion good.
Tenant (defendant) took a day to imparl.
Language Notes (Law French)
Abstract Context
s.v. Dudley, Edmund, c. 1462-1510, in Oxford DNB, and Elizabeth, d. 1498.
Commentary & Paraphrase
Bryan CJCP: in Formedon for land recovered in value, the tenant pleads (dit), that he (donor) did not give, the demandant shows the recovery, and will reply (dirra) 'thus he gave' and it will be tried on the recovery (or record), notwithstanding that the issue extended to the matter in fact, so it seems in this case that the special matter will be tried where she (il) could plead over what of whose possession in law she (demandant wife) was endowable, and demand judgment and pray her dower
if anyone had abated (wrongfully entered) after the death of T.H. and no entry had by J.H. she would not be endowable
Sjt Vavasour (for D): it seems that the plea (?) is good, because she (il) ought to have concluded 'and thus seised of such estate (of which she could be endowed), as in Formedon for lands recovered in value, or for lands come by escheat, or the lordship (Seigniorie) was given in (fee) tail, in those cases one ought to conclude, 'and so (there was a) gift, so thus in this case
and the Justices: in Formedon the special matter is not waived and all will be entered, and there he had alleged expressly a gift that ought to be maintained, but so she has not alleged espressly a possession in the husband, but that she was endowable by the law where her husband was not seised in fact
and then the Justices held the conclusion good,
so Sjt Vavasour (for D) took a day by imparlance, etc.
Manuscripts Mss Notes Editing Notes Errors
1481.098 = Mich. 21 Edw. 4, pl. 30, fol. 59b-60a
Fitzherbert Dower 15, fol. 257r, dated this both Pasch. and Mich. 21 Edw. 4, fol. 60
Translations/Editions
Plea Roll Record Year Record Plaintiffs Record Defendants Last Update
0 2006-12-16
Keywords
Suit
Wife
Late (jades)
Formerly (jades)
Knight
Demand
Reason
Dower
Reasonable Dower
Manor
County (com')
Endowment (dowment)
Husband
Late Husband
Seisin
Never Seised
Father
Demesne
Fee
Dying Seised
Death (morust, mort)
Descent
Son
Heir
Entry
Motion
Conclusion
Concluding
Thus Seised
Waiver
Matter
Special Matter
Seeming
Formedon
Recovery
Value
Recovery In Value
Il Ne Done
Gift
He Did Not Give
Showing
Trial
Record
Trial By Record (?)
Notwithstanding
Issue
Extension
Extending
Matter In Fact
In Fact
Case
Possession
Possession In Law
Endowable (dowable)
Judgment
Note
Driving (chace)
No Other Entry
Abatement (offence)
Advice
Day
Plea
Good Plea
Estate
Escheat
By Escheat
Coming By Escheat
Lordship
Fee Tail
Gift In Fee Tail
Issint Done
Thus He Gave
Allegation
Maintenance Of Gift
Endowable By Law
Seisin In Fact
Holding (teigne)
Good Conclusion
Taking Day
Imparlment
Accord
Previous Record Next Record

Return to Search