On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 6:29:42 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > For nearly a century, a drawn out land dispute saw the Zouche family > contesting the rights of Stowell, Bampfield and Fortescue to North Molton, > which had been St. Maur land. The descent of most of the claimants is > clear: in 1408/9, Richard, Lord St. Maur, died s.p.m., leaving sole heiress > Alice, wife of William, Lord Zouche. However, certain family lands > including North Molton fell to Richard's brother John St. Maur. John's > grandson Thomas died in 1489, leaving as heir his grandson William, who died > in the early 16th century, leaving infant daughter Joan St Maur. When she > died in 1516, her heirs were her first cousins, John Stowell and Edmund > Bampfeld, children of the sisters of her father, William St. Maur. > > Where does Fortescue fit in? The ipm of William Seymour/Seyntmaure, in > 1532, states that a life interest in North Molton was settled on him > (seemingly immediately after Joan's death, perhaps to shield the juvenile > heirs) with Stowell and Bampfield each to receive half shares on his death. A year ago I suggested that this William Seyntmaure perhaps was given a lease to North Molton as a means used by the family to protect the lands during the minority of the heirs. The interactions between the branches, and the elder William's holdings in North Molton seems more complex. In 1500, William Seyntmaure junior, son of John, son of Thomas, son of John, son of Margaret, son of John de Erlegh brought suit to challenge the holdings of William Seyntmaure (senior) of North Molton. Clearly William the elder, whatever his relationship to William the younger, had a presence at North Molton before the death of the younger William. http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H7/CP40no951/aCP40no951fronts/IMG_0314.htm taf