407,336
edits
England Land and Property: Difference between revisions
cite
(cite) |
|||
| Line 239: | Line 239: | ||
== Feet of Fines and Recoveries == | == Feet of Fines and Recoveries == | ||
Because an entry on the rolls of one of the royal courts was regarded as binding upon all persons it became customary to create and transfer interests in land by bringing collusive actions in the Court of Common Pleas so that the resulting agreements were registered. | Because an entry on the rolls of one of the royal courts was regarded as binding upon all persons it became customary to create and transfer interests in land by bringing collusive actions in the Court of Common Pleas so that the resulting agreements were registered. One of the major sources in the Medieval time period. They are used to show relationship of individuals to their parents and also list individuals and their place of residence.<ref name="profile">The Family History Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Family History Record Profile: England,” Word document, private files of the FamilySearch Content Strategy Team, 1984-2000.</ref> | ||
There were two principal methods by which this was done. In the first, called the Final Concord or Fine, the purchaser (who was the plaintiff or querient) alleged that the seller (the vendor or deforciant) had agreed to sell the property in question but had failed to do so. Before the court could reach a judgment the parties came to an out of court settlement (the Final Concord) and an order was then made which gave the purchaser the freehold of the property. The final judgment was recorded three times on a sheet of parchment which was then cut into three pieces with wavy cuts. The top left and right pieces were given to the seller and the purchaser and the bottom piece, or foot, was retained by the Court and enrolled. The resulting records in the Court of Common Pleas, called Feet of Fines, run from 1182 to 1834 (CP 25), but the later ones are little used by genealogists. They give the names of the parties, who may include a husband and wife or father and son, and provide a very brief description of the land being sold. | There were two principal methods by which this was done. In the first, called the Final Concord or Fine, the purchaser (who was the plaintiff or querient) alleged that the seller (the vendor or deforciant) had agreed to sell the property in question but had failed to do so. Before the court could reach a judgment the parties came to an out of court settlement (the Final Concord) and an order was then made which gave the purchaser the freehold of the property. The final judgment was recorded three times on a sheet of parchment which was then cut into three pieces with wavy cuts. The top left and right pieces were given to the seller and the purchaser and the bottom piece, or foot, was retained by the Court and enrolled. The resulting records in the Court of Common Pleas, called Feet of Fines, run from 1182 to 1834 (CP 25), but the later ones are little used by genealogists. They give the names of the parties, who may include a husband and wife or father and son, and provide a very brief description of the land being sold. | ||
The second collusive action was the Recovery, in which the purchaser (or demandant) brought a case against the vendor (the freeholder or tenant-in-tail) to ‘recover’ the property, claiming that he had been ejected from it by a fictitious third party (given a name such as Hugh Hunt or Richard Rowe). The vendor would call on some other person as a ‘vouchee’ to vouch for his title and when consulted out of court by the purchaser the vouchee would disappear, allowing judgment to be made for the purchaser. The latter would then be given a freehold which effectively dispensed with any remainder or entail which there may have been on the property, indeed the process was often gone through for that purpose alone. The resulting deeds, which are recorded on the Plea and Recovery Rolls, continue to 1834 (CP 40, 43). There are manuscript lists, arranged by date, at The National Archives (see the''‘Legal Records Information 7’ ''guide online mentioned above). | The second collusive action was the Recovery, in which the purchaser (or demandant) brought a case against the vendor (the freeholder or tenant-in-tail) to ‘recover’ the property, claiming that he had been ejected from it by a fictitious third party (given a name such as Hugh Hunt or Richard Rowe). The vendor would call on some other person as a ‘vouchee’ to vouch for his title and when consulted out of court by the purchaser the vouchee would disappear, allowing judgment to be made for the purchaser. The latter would then be given a freehold which effectively dispensed with any remainder or entail which there may have been on the property, indeed the process was often gone through for that purpose alone. The resulting deeds, which are recorded on the Plea and Recovery Rolls, continue to 1834 (CP 40, 43). There are manuscript lists, arranged by date, at The National Archives (see the''‘Legal Records Information 7’ ''guide online mentioned above). | ||
== Statute of Enrollments, 1535 == | == Statute of Enrollments, 1535 == | ||