John Cosyn v. Thomas Castell, gentleman: Hilary term, 1538, Court of Common Pleas
The two chains of title: The issue in the case is solely on whether Castell disseised Cosyn, so the case did not resolve down into a more specific issue. If one takes as much as possible from both sides as true, the small parcel of land here was originally Nicholas Dore’s. He enfeoffed Henry Sayer. According to Castell, Sayer held to Dore’s use and the performance of Dore’s will. Dore’s will specified that his wife should sell the land, so that by bargain and sale she sold the land to David Broun, whereby he was seised at common law and thereafter enfeoffed Thomas Castell. Cosyn, the plaintiff, maintained that Henry Sayer (with no mention that he was a feoffee to use) enfeoffed Nicholas Cosyn and three others to Cosyn’s use. When that Cosyn died, the remaining feoffees held to the use of John Cosyn his son, whose beneficial interest was converted by the Statute of Uses into a legal interest. At that point, apparently for the first time, Castell’s claim and Cosyn’s possession came into conflict.
To assess whether Castell had disseised Cosyn, the jury would have to determine (1) if Henry Sayer had been a feoffee to uses for Dore, and (2) if he was thus a feoffee for Dore, if Sayer’s feoffment of Nicholas Cosyn and the three others to Cosyn’s use was proper (i.e., mandated by Dore either directly or indirectly (as by the performance of a directive implementing a surety interest.)) Henry Sayer, however, was far back in the chain of title on either side and was perhaps already dead.
This case and the Statute of Uses:
(1) On the Cosyn side, the effect of the Statute of Uses cited here was relatively simple: the holder of a beneficial interest of a fee simple under a use became seised of a fee simple at common law.
(2) On the Dore/Castell side, the use specified was the performance of the beneficiary’s will, and the will among other things ordered his widow to sell the land. In regard at least to the piece of land concerned, the use would seem to have been active at least through to the completion of the sale and thus not affected by the Statute of Uses until that point. The scenario raises the question, however, about how the statute would have treated the other portions of the will directives about which we know nothing. Would a single active element in a use prevent the action of the Statute of Uses on all the elements or only on the obviously active element? Or only if they were interrelated? Or was the use purpose “to fulfill the performance of my last will” intrinsically active for all matters, recognizing however that a simple distribution to an individual or among individuals in fee simple effectively would invoke the statute immediately?
[IMG 2086] Essex. John Cosyn by Richard Lyndesell his attorney seeks against Thomas Castell gentleman 3½ acres of land with appurtenances in Haydon and Great Chishall of which the same Thomas unjustly and without judgment disseised the abovesaid John after the first etc. And wherefore he says that he himself was seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres of land with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee and right in time of peace in the time of the now lord king by taking thereof esplees to the value etc., and of which etc., and thereof he produces suit etc.
And the abovesaid Thomas by George Symcote his attorney comes and defends his right when etc., and says that the abovesaid John ought not have his abovesaid action against him, because he says that a certain David Broun was seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres of land with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee and thus seised thereof of the same 3½ acres of land with appurtenances he enfeoffed that Thomas to have to himself and his heirs in perpetuity, by virtue of which feoffment the same Thomas was seised of those 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee, and the abovesaid John, claiming the same 3½ acres with appurtenances by color of a certain charter of demise made to him thereof for term of his life by the abovesaid David whereas nothing of the abovesaid 3½ acres of land with appurtenances ever transferred into the possession of the same John by that charter, entered onto the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances, on the possession of which certain John thereof the same Thomas afterwards re-entered as well he might, and this he is ready to verify, wherefore he seeks judgment if the abovesaid John ought to have his abovesaid action against him etc.
And the abovesaid John says that he ought not to be precluded from having his abovesaid action by anything alleged before, because he says that long before the abovesaid David had anything in the abovesaid 3½ acres of land with appurtenances, a certain Henry Sayer was seised of the same 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee, and thus seised thereof of the same 3½ acres with appurtenances he enfeoffed the certain Nicholas Cosyn, John Prees, John Colte, and John Harold to have to him, his heirs and assigns to the use of the abovesaid Nicholas Cosyn, his heirs and assigns in perpetuity, by virtue of which certain feoffment the same Nicholas, John, John, and John were seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances in their demesne as of fee to the same use, and being thus seised thereof to the abovesaid use the abovesaid Nicholas had issue, the abovesaid John now plaintiff, and afterwards, scilt., at Stortford in the county of Hertfordshire, he died, after the death of which certain Nicholas Cosyn the use of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances descended to the same John Cosyn now plaintiff as to son and heir of the abovesaid Nicholas, whereby the abovesaid John Prees, John Colte, and John Harolde were seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances in their demesne as of fee to the use of the abovesaid John Cosyn now plaintiff and his heirs by the right of increase until February 4 in the 27th year of the reign of the now lord king [February 4, 1536], [IMG 2087] at which certain February 4 the abovesaid John was seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee according to the form of the statute thereof lately promulgated and provided until the abovesaid David unjustly and without judgment disseised that John Cosyn of the 3½ acres with appurtenances, whereby the same David was seised of the same 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee by disseisin, and thus seised thereof by that disseisin the same David enfeoffed the abovesaid Thomas Castell of the 3½ acres with appurtenances to have to him and his heirs in perpetuity, by virtue of which certain feoffment the same Thomas was seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee, on the possession of which certain Thomas Castell thereof the same John Cosyn afterwards re-entered and was thereof seised in his demesne as of fee until the abovesaid Thomas Castell unjustly and without judgment disseised that John Cosyn of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances, as the same John by his abovesaid writ and narration supposed above, and this he is prepared to verify, wherefore he seeks judgment and seisin of the 3½ acres with appurtenances to be adjudicated to him etc.
And the abovesaid Thomas Castell says that long before the abovesaid Henry Sayer had anything in the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances a certain Nicholas Dore was seised of the same 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee, and thus seised thereof he enfeoffed the abovesaid Henry Sayer of the same 3½ acres with appurtenances to have to him and his heirs in perpetuity to the use of the abovesaid Nicholas Dore, his heirs and assigns in perpetuity and to the intention to fulfill thereof and faithfully execute the last will and testament of the same Nicholas, by virtue of which feoffment the abovesaid Henry Sayer was seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee to the abovesaid use, and that Henry being thus seised of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances to the abovesaid use the abovesaid Nicholas afterwards made and established his testament and last will, and by the same among other things he willed and declared that after his death Magdalene his wife should bargain and sell the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances [IMG 3305] and afterwards at Haydon abovesaid he died, after the death of which certain Nicholas the abovesaid Magdalene for a certain sum of money paid in advance to her by the abovesaid David bargained and sold the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances to the same David to have to him and his heirs and assigns in perpetuity, by pretext of which the same David entered into the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances and was thereof seised in his demesne as of fee, and thus seised thereof of the same 3½ acres with appurtenances he enfeoffed that Thomas to have to him and his heirs in perpetuity, by virtue of which certain feoffment the same Thomas was seised of the 3½ acres with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee as he alleged above in pleading, without this that the abovesaid David unjustly and without judgment disseised the abovesaid John Cosyn of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances as the same John above alleged, and he is ready to verify wherefore as before he seeks judgment and that the abovesaid John Cosyn be precluded from having his abovesaid action against him.
And the abovesaid John Cosyn as before says that the abovesaid David unjustly etc., disseised that John Cosyn of the abovesaid 3½ acres with appurtenances as he alleged above, and he seeks that this be inquired by countryside. And the abovesaid Thomas similarly. Therefore it is ordered to the sheriff that he make to come here on the Octaves of Holy Trinity 12 etc., by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc.