Richard Alen v. John Chorlton of Wellington, gentleman: Michaelmas term, 1539

         This action of ejectment hinged on whether two leasees held simply (the plaintiff was the surviving leasee) or whether they held jointly to the use of one of them for the term (the defendant was married to the widow of the other leasee/asserted beneficiary). The defendant’s widow’s first husband, as the asserted primary owner of the lease, had made his will that gave the lease to his son, but during the son’s minority the profits of the lease would be collected by his widow for her and the sustenance of the children.

This case and the Statute of Uses:

         The Statute of Uses in terms applied only to situations in which the feoffees to uses were seised, so that the statute would not have acted on uses in which those holding the legal interest only had a term of years, as in this case. Indeed, the Statute of Uses was not here cited, nor does it seem to have been relied upon: the use here continued through 1536 (if there was a use) without any interruption. The beneficiary here had made a simple will to provide for his children by giving the profits of the lease to his widow for the children’s sustenance until the eldest son reached the age of 21. The conclusion would be that a wide variety of uses (those in which those holding the legal interest had only a term of years) were not only theoretically possible still but were also known. Thus the profits of real estate could still have been managed by wills and uses in many ways, although the complications of holding the legal fee simple would certainly produce more complexity. Once again, the beneficiary appears also as one of the holders of the legal interest.

[IMG 9664] Shropshire. John Chorlton of Wellington in the abovesaid county gentleman and Anna his wife were attached to answer Richard Alen concerning a plea why with force and arms they entered the manor of Wellington with appurtenances that Christofer Garnyshe knight and Joan his wife demised to the aforementioned Richard and to a certain William Alen now deceased at a term of 20 years which has not yet expired and ejected the same Richard from his abovesaid farm, and inflicted other enormities on him to the grave damage of the same Richard and against the peace of the now lord king etc. And wherefore the same Richard in his proper person complains that the abovesaid John and Anna on February 5 in the 27^th year of the reign of now lord king [February 5, 1536] with force and arms etc., entered the manor of Wellington with appurtenances that Christofer Garnyshe knight and Joan his wife demised on August 23 in the 14^th year of the reign of the now lord king [August 23, 1522] at Wellington abovesaid to the aforementioned Richard and to a certain William Alen now deceased to have to the same Richard and William at a term of 20 years by rendering thereof annually to the aforementioned Christofer and Joan during the abovesaid term £23 at the feasts of St. Michael the Archangel and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary by equal portions, which certain term has not yet expired, and ejected the same Richard from his abovesaid farm and other enormities etc., to the grave damage etc., and against the peace etc., wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of £40, and thereof he produces suit etc.

         And the abovesaid John and Anna by Ralf Caldwall their attorney come and defend force and injury when etc., and they say that the abovesaid Richard ought not have his abovesaid action against them, because they say that it is well and true that the abovesaid Christofer Garnyshe and Joan demised the abovesaid manor with appurtenances to the aforementioned Richard Alen and William to have to themselves at a term of the abovesaid 20 years, which certain demise of the abovesaid manor with appurtenances was made to the use of the abovesaid William and his assigns during the abovesaid term of 20 years, by virtue of which demise the abovesaid Richard and William entered into the abovesaid manor with appurtenances and were thereof possessed to the use of the abovesaid William and his assigns; and they being possessed thus thereof to that use the abovesaid William afterwards, scilt., on [blank] day in the [blank] year of the reign of the now lord king at Wellington abovesaid established his testament and last will; and by his same last will among other things he willed that Robert Alen his son after his death would have the abovesaid manor with appurtenances during the term of the abovesaid 20 years; and the same William by his abovesaid last will further willed that the profits of the same manor during the minority of the same Robert would be received by the abovesaid Anna to the use of the same Anna and to the sustenance of his children; and afterwards, viz., at Wellington abovesaid he died; after whose death the abovesaid Anna because the abovesaid Robert then was under the age of 21 years in her widowhood entered into the abovesaid manor according to the abovesaid last will of the abovesaid William and had and took the issues and profits of the same manor, and this they are ready to verify, wherefore they seek judgment if the abovesaid Richard ought to have his abovesaid action against them etc.

         And the abovesaid Richard says that he by anything alleged above ought not to be precluded from having his abovesaid action, because he says that the abovesaid Christofer and Joan on the day and year abovesaid specified in his abovesaid narration at Wellington abovesaid demised the abovesaid manor with appurtenances to the same Richard and the aforementioned William to have to the same Richard and William at term of the abovesaid 20 years as the same Richard by his writ and narration abovesaid suppose above, without this that the same demise of the same manor was made to the use of the abovesaid William Alen and his assigns, as the abovesaid John Chorlton and Anna alleged above, and this he is ready to verify, wherefore since the abovesaid John Chorlton and Anna acknowledge the abovesaid entry and ejectment above, he seeks judgment and his damages by occasion of that entry and ejectment to be adjudicated to him etc.

         And the abovesaid John Chorlton and Anna as before say that the abovesaid demise of the abovesaid manor was made to the use of the abovesaid William Alen and his assigns as they alleged above, and of this they put themselves on the countryside. And the abovesaid Richard Alen similarly. Therefore it is ordered to the sheriff that he should make to come here on the Octaves of St. Hilary 12 etc., by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. At which day here came the parties etc., and the sheriff did not send the writ. Therefore as before it is ordered to the sheriff that he make to come here at 15 days from Easter 12 etc., to recognize in the form abovesaid etc. At which day here came the parties etc., and the sheriff did not send the writ. Therefore as before it is ordered to the sheriff that he make to come here on the morrow of the Ascension 12 etc., to recognize in the abovesaid form etc. At which day here came the parties etc. And the sheriff did not send the writ. Therefore as before it was ordered to the sheriff that he make to come here on the Octaves of Holy Trinity 12 etc., to recognize in the form abovesaid etc. At which day came the parties etc., and the sheriff did not send the writ. Therefore as before it was ordered to the sheriff that he make to come here on the morrow of All Souls 12 etc., to recognize in the abovesaid form etc.