There are several websites which perform this calculation. One is http://www.measuringworth.com But it makes a lot of difference whether you are thinking in terms of prices or wages. This particular site comes up with 40 shillings in 1719 being worth in 2008: In terms of the Retail Price Index :- 273.97 pounds In terms of Average earnings:- 3091.05 Only dates from 1254 to 2008 areavailable. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Lee" <alee231@btinternet.com> To: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net>; <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > Can anyone assess how much, in current money, 40 shillings (2 GB pounds) > would be? Although it doesn't look a great deal now, I think it may have > been very different in 1719. This is nearly 300 years ago and inflation > must have had an enormous effect on cash values since then. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net> > To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:05 PM > Subject: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> >> To: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>; >> <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will >> >> >> |> >> | > Hello all >> | > >> | > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 >> years >> | > old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text >> of >> | > the will. >> | > >> | > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor >> of >> | > this >> | > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And >> I >> | > do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be >> | > Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates >> | > untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to >> | > take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the >> management >> | > thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act >> | > therein" >> | > >> | > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John >> was >> | > the only living son. >> >> Absolutely. The testator prudently made a will which would hold till he >> died (I take it his wife was already dead); he did not wish to predict >> the >> date of his own death, always hoping it might not be untill the son >> was >> of age. However, perhaps being more realistic, he provided named >> guardians for the children until such time as John was 21, and they >> were paid a relatively small sum for their trouble (plus actual >> outgoings, which would be accounted for and charged against any >> profits they made by running the farm/business/estate/) >> The Uncle was the natural guardian, who would have been >> appointed anyway (though a fee would have been charged for making >> that appointment, which testator therby avoids.) >> >> >> >> >> >> ==================================== >> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> -- >> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> >> >> > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > __________ NOD32 4212 (20090703) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >

The creation of a 'Release to make a Tenant to Precipe to suffer a Recovery' doesn't suggest that the vendor of the property was dragging his heels - a conveyance of this sort was the standard and essential first step in any Common Recovery, and would have been entered into in every case, probably just as soon as the parties had agreed to proceed with the transaction and to do it by means of a Common Recovery. The procedure, agreed in advance between all the parties, was as follows: 1. the owner/vendor of the land conveyed the land to a friend, called the 'tenant' (this was the 'conveyance to make a Tenant to the Precipe'). 2. The purchaser then sued the tenant claiming the land. 3. The tenant then brought the owner into the lawsuit, claiming compensation from him if it turned out the land had to be given up to the plaintiff/purchaser (technically this was called 'vouching the owner', which is why the owner is often called the vouchee). 4. The owner/vouchee in turn brought a fourth person into the suit, claiming, completely untruthfully, that he (the owner) had acquired the land from this fourth person (the 'common vouchee'). This fourth person would often be a junior court official. 5. The common vouchee would then fail to defend the case (perhaps by quite literally leaving the courtroom), and so the plaintiff/purchaser would win his case, getting a court order that he owned the land. This was commonly done where there was some problem with the owner/vendor's title - perhaps it was entailed - because the court order that the property belonged to the purchaser overrode the title problem. Matt Tompkins ----- Original Message ----- From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> To: "Polly Rubery" <polly@rowberry.org>; <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old documents |> Hi All | > | > One of my FH students has sent me the following query: | > | > >>I have come across a document in the course of my research which is | > >>entitled :- | > | > "Release to make tenants to precipe to suffer a Recovery" | | Basically, A has agreed to sell the premises to B, and the money is | probably even now with the stakeholders. A, while in control of the | premises, is the tenant (holder, not rent-payer) and he is dragging his | feet about getting on with the necessary legal manouevres. This is to | make him shift right away. | The method of transfer chosen is a Common Recovery. | B claims that the property is his and his ancestors' before him and | that A and his kin have withheld it illegally. A says nonsense, it is ours | and my witnesses Richard Roe and John Doe will back me up. | Steward says, right, bring them into court to say so. As there ain't no | sich persons, A fails to do so, and the property is judged to have | belong to B all the time | Sounds complicated, but it avoided some of the paperwork and legal | fees to the Crown. | While the process is going on, C and D hold the purchase price and | only pay it over when the Recovery has gone through. They get a few | shillings each for their trouble. (Nowadays, solicitors hold the money | and similarly drag their feet over completing the job). | ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<... two inventories for a husband and then his wife who died a year later. Each heading has been given a number according to its position in the inventory. The heading numbers for Henry go down the page 1 - 13 but Mary's dodges around a bit where I have to tried to match them with Henry's. The question is do these inventories apply to the same house? They don't seem to but I'd be grateful for the views of others.>> I agree with Audrey, Keith - I'd say they're the same house. The widow's Chamber over the Parlour is probably what was called the Green Chamber in her husband's inventory, while the widow's first Buttery is probably the same as the husband's Larder. That leaves only the Beer Buttery and the Men's' Chamber as differences between the two inventories. The Beer Buttery, just a little office or outbuilding, is too small a difference to be significant - there were clearly other outbuildings which haven't been listed by name (and anyway the husband's Larder may have been a two-room affair equating to both of the widow's Butteries). The absence of the Men's' Chamber is a bit more odd, but perhaps it just didn't contain any of the widow's goods (maybe it contained nothing but male servants and their personal property, or some adult male who was running the farm for the widow, or maybe it was occupied by the nephew and heir Richard or some other relative - did the husband's will confer a right of habitation on anyone?). Incidentally, it was common to store wool and grain and minor agricultural implements in the first floor sleeping chambers of a house (note the reference to 'wheat in the house' in the widow's inventory), so it may well be that the first two or four items under 'Outdoors B from 12 above' in the husband's inventory were in fact stored in the Men's Chamber where they were listed (incidentally the Men's and Maidens' Chambers would probably have been where the male and female servants in husbandry slept). I think the items listed under the Hall in the husband's inventory, which you speculate ought to have belonged to the Kitchen, probably were in fact in the Hall. At that time the hall was often still the largest room in the house and was its main living and eating room. It was sometimes even still used for cooking. It looks as though in these inventories the word 'kitchen' described a brewhouse. It's interesting to see how the husband's inventory, made in the autumn, lists a great deal of grain and other harvested crops, but that the widow's inventory, made in the summer before the harvest, does not. Comparing these two inventories would be a useful exercise for students - may I download them and use them for that purpose, Keith? Matt Tompkins

Whoops!. I did it for 3 pounds, not 2. Sorry about that! It should be 332.35 - B of E, or 273.97 and 3091.05 by the other converter. Alwynne ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Lee" <alee231@btinternet.com> To: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net>; <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > Can anyone assess how much, in current money, 40 shillings (2 GB pounds) > would be? Although it doesn't look a great deal now, I think it may have > been very different in 1719. This is nearly 300 years ago and inflation > must have had an enormous effect on cash values since then. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net> > To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:05 PM > Subject: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> >> To: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>; >> <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will >> >> >> |> >> | > Hello all >> | > >> | > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 >> years >> | > old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text >> of >> | > the will. >> | > >> | > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor >> of >> | > this >> | > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And >> I >> | > do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be >> | > Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates >> | > untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to >> | > take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the >> management >> | > thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act >> | > therein" >> | > >> | > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John >> was >> | > the only living son. >> >> Absolutely. The testator prudently made a will which would hold till he >> died (I take it his wife was already dead); he did not wish to predict >> the >> date of his own death, always hoping it might not be untill the son >> was >> of age. However, perhaps being more realistic, he provided named >> guardians for the children until such time as John was 21, and they >> were paid a relatively small sum for their trouble (plus actual >> outgoings, which would be accounted for and charged against any >> profits they made by running the farm/business/estate/) >> The Uncle was the natural guardian, who would have been >> appointed anyway (though a fee would have been charged for making >> that appointment, which testator therby avoids.) >> >> >> >> >> >> ==================================== >> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> -- >> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> >> >> > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The Bank of England site says 498.52 pounds in 1750, which is the earliest date it gives. Another site says, for 1719, 410.96 if usung the retail price index, or 4636.67 if using average earnings. Cheers, Alwynne ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Lee" <alee231@btinternet.com> To: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net>; <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > Can anyone assess how much, in current money, 40 shillings (2 GB pounds) > would be? Although it doesn't look a great deal now, I think it may have > been very different in 1719. This is nearly 300 years ago and inflation > must have had an enormous effect on cash values since then. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net> > To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:05 PM > Subject: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> >> To: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>; >> <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will >> >> >> |> >> | > Hello all >> | > >> | > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 >> years >> | > old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text >> of >> | > the will. >> | > >> | > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor >> of >> | > this >> | > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And >> I >> | > do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be >> | > Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates >> | > untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to >> | > take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the >> management >> | > thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act >> | > therein" >> | > >> | > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John >> was >> | > the only living son. >> >> Absolutely. The testator prudently made a will which would hold till he >> died (I take it his wife was already dead); he did not wish to predict >> the >> date of his own death, always hoping it might not be untill the son >> was >> of age. However, perhaps being more realistic, he provided named >> guardians for the children until such time as John was 21, and they >> were paid a relatively small sum for their trouble (plus actual >> outgoings, which would be accounted for and charged against any >> profits they made by running the farm/business/estate/) >> The Uncle was the natural guardian, who would have been >> appointed anyway (though a fee would have been charged for making >> that appointment, which testator therby avoids.) >> >> >> >> >> >> ==================================== >> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> -- >> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> >> >> > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Problems I have in just using a currency converter is looking at the stipends of clergy around that time. They seem to have existed on quite small sums and so the 40 shillings may have been an amount that could have supported a man and his family for a year in a reasonable fashion. This is why I am thinking that perhaps this amount was not an inconsiderable sum to reward, or keep on track, the two trustees, albeit that they were not poverty-stricken in the first place. Any ideas about this one? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au> To: "A Lee" <alee231@btinternet.com>; "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net>; <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 4:45 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > Whoops!. I did it for 3 pounds, not 2. Sorry about that! It should be > 332.35 - B of E, or 273.97 and 3091.05 by the other converter. > Alwynne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A Lee" <alee231@btinternet.com> > To: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net>; <old-english@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 6:29 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > >> Can anyone assess how much, in current money, 40 shillings (2 GB pounds) >> would be? Although it doesn't look a great deal now, I think it may have >> been very different in 1719. This is nearly 300 years ago and inflation >> must have had an enormous effect on cash values since then. >> >> Audrey >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net> >> To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:05 PM >> Subject: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will >> >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> >>> To: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>; >>> <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:51 AM >>> Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will >>> >>> >>> |> >>> | > Hello all >>> | > >>> | > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 >>> years >>> | > old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text >>> of >>> | > the will. >>> | > >>> | > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor >>> of >>> | > this >>> | > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And >>> I >>> | > do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be >>> | > Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates >>> | > untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to >>> | > take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the >>> management >>> | > thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act >>> | > therein" >>> | > >>> | > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John >>> was >>> | > the only living son. >>> >>> Absolutely. The testator prudently made a will which would hold till he >>> died (I take it his wife was already dead); he did not wish to predict >>> the >>> date of his own death, always hoping it might not be untill the son >>> was >>> of age. However, perhaps being more realistic, he provided named >>> guardians for the children until such time as John was 21, and they >>> were paid a relatively small sum for their trouble (plus actual >>> outgoings, which would be accounted for and charged against any >>> profits they made by running the farm/business/estate/) >>> The Uncle was the natural guardian, who would have been >>> appointed anyway (though a fee would have been charged for making >>> that appointment, which testator therby avoids.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ==================================== >>> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >>> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==================================== >> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> > >

Do you also have wills for these two people? Did Henry have debts listed or even just mentioned? There seem to be similar rooms "downstairs" which would lead me to suspect that it could be the same house. Although one of the appraisers was the same, he was not accompanied by the same partner and so different things could be spotted. People do rearrange things and a year has passed in which debts may have made it necessary to sell some things. In addition to that, if Henry's will bequeathed some of his possessions then they would have not figured in his widow's inventory taken a year later. If you are lucky enough to have a will to go with either or both of these inventories, then reading them together with the inventories could prove helpful. Can you identify another dwelling that the widow may have occupied - one that had a hall. If she were in poorer circumstances and was existing on her dower alone, then one would expect her to have moved to either a house provided for that purpose or one that she could afford to live in. However, the similarities of room descriptions makes it more likely that it was the same house but one that had been subject to provisions of a will and had "seen life" for a year, so making it likely that items would be bought and sold over that period. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Griffiths" <griffiths370@btinternet.com> To: "Old English mailing list" <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:14 AM Subject: [OEL] Two inventories - are they for the same house or a differenthouse > At > > http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~oel/unsolved50.html > > are two inventories for a husband and then his wife who died a year later. > > Each heading has been given a number according to its position in the > inventory. The heading numbers for Henry go down the page 1 - 13 but > Mary's > dodges around a bit where I have to tried to match them with Henry's. > > The question is do these inventories apply to the same house? > > They don't seem to but I'd be grateful for the views of others. > > Henry was lord of the manor of Elmsted his father having bought it in > 1634. > Court documents relating to this manor are rare but some exist for the > late > 1400s and in the inventory for Mary is a debt due for a quit rent. > ~~ > Keith Griffiths > Elmsted, Kent > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> > >

Hi All One of my FH students has sent me the following query: >>I have come across a document in the course of my research which is entitled :- "Release to make tenants to precipe to suffer a Recovery" Could you please tell me in plain English what that means? The document concerns the usual messuages, appurts, orchards, meadows etc which were by indenture (1611) conveyed by to my ancestor by various people.<< As I cannot answer this off the top of my head, I thought I would seek for enlightenment from the List, as I would like to ensure that I give her the correct answer. Kind regards Polly Many thanks, Janet

At http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~oel/unsolved50.html are two inventories for a husband and then his wife who died a year later. Each heading has been given a number according to its position in the inventory. The heading numbers for Henry go down the page 1 - 13 but Mary's dodges around a bit where I have to tried to match them with Henry's. The question is do these inventories apply to the same house? They don't seem to but I'd be grateful for the views of others. Henry was lord of the manor of Elmsted his father having bought it in 1634. Court documents relating to this manor are rare but some exist for the late 1400s and in the inventory for Mary is a debt due for a quit rent. ~~ Keith Griffiths Elmsted, Kent

Forwarded to the list: ----- Original Message ----- From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> To: "Polly Rubery" <polly@rowberry.org>; <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old documents |> Hi All | > | > One of my FH students has sent me the following query: | > | > >>I have come across a document in the course of my research which is | > >>entitled :- | > | > "Release to make tenants to precipe to suffer a Recovery" | | Basically, A has agreed to sell the premises to B, and the money is | probably even now with the stakeholders. A, while in control of the | premises, is the tenant (holder, not rent-payer) and he is dragging his | feet about getting on with the necessary legal manouevres. This is to | make him shift right away. | The method of transfer chosen is a Common Recovery. | B claims that the property is his and his ancestors' before him and | that A and his kin have withheld it illegally. A says nonsense, it is ours | and my witnesses Richard Roe and John Doe will back me up. | Steward says, right, bring them into court to say so. As there ain't no | sich persons, A fails to do so, and the property is judged to have | belong to B all the time | Sounds complicated, but it avoided some of the paperwork and legal | fees to the Crown. | While the process is going on, C and D hold the purchase price and | only pay it over when the Recovery has gone through. They get a few | shillings each for their trouble. (Nowadays, solicitors hold the money | and similarly drag their feet over completing the job). |

A Common Recovery was a fictitious lawsuit with the purpose of confirming ownership of a property. A deed of conveyance (usually Lease and Release) was drawn up to explain its purpose. This is what is known as a "Conveyance to make a tenant to the Precipe for the purpose of suffering a Common recovery" .The conveyance is BY the owner TO the tenant and the third party is usually the purchaser if the property is being sold. The recoverer ends of holding the property, to the uses which are intended and which are given in the deed. Best wishes, Margaret. In a message dated 04/07/2009 07:43:22 GMT Daylight Time, polly@rowberry.org writes: Hi All One of my FH students has sent me the following query: >>I have come across a document in the course of my research which is entitled :- "Release to make tenants to precipe to suffer a Recovery" Could you please tell me in plain English what that means? The document concerns the usual messuages, appurts, orchards, meadows etc which were by indenture (1611) conveyed by to my ancestor by various people.<< As I cannot answer this off the top of my head, I thought I would seek for enlightenment from the List, as I would like to ensure that I give her the correct answer. Kind regards Polly Many thanks, Janet

Hi Chris Being a trustee would possibly have encouraged the uncle to act in loco parentis to his nephew. As the boy grew, he could have been brought more and more into the running of the estate and so educated by his uncle. If he were made an executor, he may have had a more remote influence upon the boy. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "OEL Admin" <OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com> To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:18 AM Subject: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > Hello all > > Thank you for this information. I can see it would give the son control > once > he was of age and there was quite a lot of rental property involved and > that > his wife might remarry and loose control if she was executrix > > She was still living and did so for another 20 years but she was left > an > annuity of 18 pounds from rent of property which he says "in Lieu & > full > satisfaction of her Thirds or Dower which she may have or claim out of > all > or any of my lands" > > The will was quite short and to the point and made just 4 days before > the > testator died at age 46. I think I was surprised that his brother > Coney > Tunnard who was the sheriff of Lincolnshire was not made executor since > as trustee he was virtually acting in that capacity for 16 years. > > regards > Chris Bartlett > > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> > >

Can anyone assess how much, in current money, 40 shillings (2 GB pounds) would be? Although it doesn't look a great deal now, I think it may have been very different in 1719. This is nearly 300 years ago and inflation must have had an enormous effect on cash values since then. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net> To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:05 PM Subject: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> > To: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>; > <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:51 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > > |> > | > Hello all > | > > | > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 > years > | > old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text > of > | > the will. > | > > | > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor > of > | > this > | > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And > I > | > do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be > | > Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates > | > untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to > | > take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the > management > | > thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act > | > therein" > | > > | > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John > was > | > the only living son. > > Absolutely. The testator prudently made a will which would hold till he > died (I take it his wife was already dead); he did not wish to predict > the > date of his own death, always hoping it might not be untill the son > was > of age. However, perhaps being more realistic, he provided named > guardians for the children until such time as John was 21, and they > were paid a relatively small sum for their trouble (plus actual > outgoings, which would be accounted for and charged against any > profits they made by running the farm/business/estate/) > The Uncle was the natural guardian, who would have been > appointed anyway (though a fee would have been charged for making > that appointment, which testator therby avoids.) > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> > >

Hello all Thank you for this information. I can see it would give the son control once he was of age and there was quite a lot of rental property involved and that his wife might remarry and loose control if she was executrix She was still living and did so for another 20 years but she was left an annuity of 18 pounds from rent of property which he says "in Lieu & full satisfaction of her Thirds or Dower which she may have or claim out of all or any of my lands" The will was quite short and to the point and made just 4 days before the testator died at age 46. I think I was surprised that his brother Coney Tunnard who was the sheriff of Lincolnshire was not made executor since as trustee he was virtually acting in that capacity for 16 years. regards Chris Bartlett

Hello all We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 years old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text of the will. "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor of this my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And I do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the management thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act therein" Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John was the only living son. regards Chris Bartlett

This is exactly what my husband and I did in the 1960's when we were going to work overseas. At the time we didn't even have children but our solicitor drew up wills which were not changed until a couple of years ago when we retired. The wills covered every eventuality and made for peace of mind. Nuala ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith Werner" <typehey@comcast.net> To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:05 PM Subject: [OEL] Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> > To: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>; > <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:51 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > > |> > | > Hello all > | > > | > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 > years > | > old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text > of > | > the will. > | > > | > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor > of > | > this > | > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And > I > | > do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be > | > Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates > | > untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to > | > take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the > management > | > thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act > | > therein" > | > > | > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John > was > | > the only living son. > > Absolutely. The testator prudently made a will which would hold till he > died (I take it his wife was already dead); he did not wish to predict > the > date of his own death, always hoping it might not be untill the son > was > of age. However, perhaps being more realistic, he provided named > guardians for the children until such time as John was 21, and they > were paid a relatively small sum for their trouble (plus actual > outgoings, which would be accounted for and charged against any > profits they made by running the farm/business/estate/) > The Uncle was the natural guardian, who would have been > appointed anyway (though a fee would have been charged for making > that appointment, which testator therby avoids.) > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Chris This happened to me Audrey, my Dad's estate was put in the hands of two Trustees until I was 21. Not quite so long ago though!!!!! Cheers Roy -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of A Lee Sent: 02 July 2009 12:26 To: Chris Bartlett; OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will That seems to be OK. The guardians will, in effect, be carrying out the son's duties and estate maintenance until his son reaches the stipulated age when he can exercise his full executive powers. It is in their interest to look after the children properly as 40 shillings a year would have been a good reward for their guardianship. Who was in charge of the purse strings and handing out the 40 shillings? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:49 AM Subject: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > Hello all > > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 years old > is > made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text of the will. > > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor of this > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And I do > appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be Trustees > and Guardians for all my said children and their estates untill their > respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to take upon them ye > said Trust and for their trouble in the management thereof I give them > forty > shillings for every year they shall act therein" > > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John was the > only living son. > > regards > Chris Bartlett > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> > > ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That seems to be OK. The guardians will, in effect, be carrying out the son's duties and estate maintenance until his son reaches the stipulated age when he can exercise his full executive powers. It is in their interest to look after the children properly as 40 shillings a year would have been a good reward for their guardianship. Who was in charge of the purse strings and handing out the 40 shillings? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:49 AM Subject: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will > > Hello all > > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 years old > is > made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text of the will. > > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor of this > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And I do > appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be Trustees > and Guardians for all my said children and their estates untill their > respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to take upon them ye > said Trust and for their trouble in the management thereof I give them > forty > shillings for every year they shall act therein" > > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John was the > only living son. > > regards > Chris Bartlett > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: - Release Date: <unknown> > >

----- Original Message ----- From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> To: "Chris Bartlett" <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>; <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:51 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Executor who is a minor in 1719 will |> | > Hello all | > | > We have a bit of a strange situation where a son who is only 5 years | > old is made the sole executor of a will. The following is the text of | > the will. | > | > "I Give & Devise to my son John whom I make full & sole Executor of | > this | > my Will hereby revoking all former Wills by me heretofore made. And I | > do appoint my brother Coney Tunnard & Mr John Robertson junr to be | > Trustees and Guardians for all my said children and their estates | > untill their respective ages of one & twenty years & desire them to | > take upon them ye said Trust and for their trouble in the management | > thereof I give them forty shillings for every year they shall act | > therein" | > | > Was this a normal situation where all children were minors. John was | > the only living son. Absolutely. The testator prudently made a will which would hold till he died (I take it his wife was already dead); he did not wish to predict the date of his own death, always hoping it might not be untill the son was of age. However, perhaps being more realistic, he provided named guardians for the children until such time as John was 21, and they were paid a relatively small sum for their trouble (plus actual outgoings, which would be accounted for and charged against any profits they made by running the farm/business/estate/) The Uncle was the natural guardian, who would have been appointed anyway (though a fee would have been charged for making that appointment, which testator therby avoids.)

<<In the manorial court records for Newcastle-under-Lyme there are many references to Grindley, Grindley fields, farm etc. dating from the late 17th century. Also on a map of 1775 the whole area was called Grindley Hill. 1572 Grindle, 1586 Gryndleyfield and Gryndley Hill, 1596 Grinley. Any thoughts on where the name of Grindley would have come from.>> Richard, have you looked in Horowitz's book? He discusses two Grindleys, one the village southwest of Uttoxeter, the other a minor locality west of Blythe Bridge (which I presume is not the one you're enquiring about, unless the manor of Newcastle had an outlying member). From the early forms of these names the village was clearly 'green leah' (since it always took the form Grenley/Grinley until well into the modern period), but the Blythe Bridge Grindley may have had a different origin (since it has always been recorded with a -d-, appearing in the earliest, medieval, records as Grandal), and Horowitz suggests a couple of possible alternative explanations (the monster Grendel or OE *grendel, a gravelly place or stream). Matt Tompkins