Roger Rokewode, armiger v. John Garneys, gentleman: Trinity term, 1539, Court of Common Pleas
Roger Rokewode in this case alleged that his father had granted land to two relatives (probably his brothers) for their lives and they had sold further in fee. The defendant pleaded that the two relatives had not received their estate from the plaintiff’s father but that all three had been use beneficiaries, albeit that the plaintiff’s father had been the settlor who granted to the feoffees who were then to hold to the use of the settlor/plaintiff’s father (in fee tail) and the two relatives (for life). The defendant went on to claim that the three use beneficiaries had then been subject to the Statute of Uses and became tenants at law and thereafter all three had participated in a common recovery. The parties demurred on the pleadings and the court successively delayed its decision; the record suddenly terminates without recording a decision. Substantively, of course, the plaintiff’s father had granted life estates to the two relatives, since he had granted to the feoffees to uses and specified the use beneficiaries (himself and the two relatives); technically, the Statute of Uses did not regard the full activity but only the relationship between the feoffees to uses and the beneficiaries. Contemporaries would have wanted to know precisely how the Statute of Uses would consider that situation. One might have expected the latter to prevail, but the record does not include a judgment on the demurrer.
[IMG 7506] Suffolk. Roger Rokewode armiger by Christofer Stubbe his attorney seeks against John Garneys gentleman 100 acres of land with appurtenances in Copdock as his right and inheritance, and in which the same John has not entry unless after the demise that John Rokewode cleric and Thomas Rokewode (to whom Edmund Rokewode father of the same Roger whose heir he is demised them for the life of the abovesaid John Rokewode and Thomas) made thereof etc., to Edmund Alcok and which after the demise by the same John Rokewode and Thomas to the aforementioned Edmund Alcok made thereof ought to revert in fee to the aforementioned Roger by form of the statute in suchlike case provided etc., and wherefore he says the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode was seised of the abovesaid 100 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 which after the demise etc., and thereof he produces suit etc.
And the abovesaid John Garneys by John Lennard his attorney comes and defends his right when etc., and says that the abovesaid Roger ought not to have his abovesaid action against him, because he says that the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode was seised of the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee and thus seised thereof by his charter, the date of which is May 1 in 3rd year of the reign of the now lord king [May 3, 1511] of the 100 acres of land with appurtenances he enfeoffed a certain William Foter cleric and John Larke cleric to have to them and their heirs in perpetuity to the use of the same Edmund Rokewode and of the abovesaid John Rokewode cleric and of Thomas Rokewode and the heirs of the body of the same Edmund Rokewode legitimately procreated; by virtue of which feoffment the same William Foter and John Larke were seised of the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances in their demesne as of fee to the same use until February 4 in the 27th year of the reign of the now lord king, [IMG 7507] on which certain February 4 by a certain act promulgated and provided in the Parliament of the said now lord king at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas were seised of the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances, viz., the same Edmund Rokewode in his demesne as of fee tail and the abovesaid John Rokewode and Thomas as of free tenement by the form of the abovesaid act etc., and thus being seised thereof, the abovesaid Edmund Alcok afterwards, scilt., March 12 in the 28th year of the reign of the now lord king [March 12, 1537] prosecuted out of the court of chancery of the said lord king a certain writ of right of the said lord king against the aforementioned Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas Rokewode concerning the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances directed to the sheriff of the abovesaid county of Suffolk, by which certain writ it was ordered to the same sheriff that he summon by good summoners the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas that they be before the justices of the lord king here at 15 days after Easter then next following to answer the aforementioned Edmund Alcok concerning a plea that they render to him the same 100 acres of land with appurtenances by name of 100 acres of land with appurtenances in Copdock; at which certain quindene of Easter here, scilt., at Westminster, came both the abovesaid Edmund Alcok in his proper person and the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas Rokewode by Richard Sandell his attorney, and the sheriff, viz., Walter Hobart knight, sent then here that writ served and executed in everything; and thereon the abovesaid Edmund Alcok narrating in the same court sought against the aforementioned Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances in Copdock as his right and inheritance by the lord king’s writ of right “because the chief lord of that fee remitted his court thereof to the lord king” etc., and wherefore he said that he himself was seised of the abovesaid 100 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 that such is his right he offers etc.; and the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas denied the right of the same Edmund Alcok and his seisin when etc., and all etc., and whatever etc., and greatly concerning the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances as of fee and right etc., and they vouched thereof to warranty Nicholas Webster who was then present in the same court in his proper person and freely warranted to them the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances etc., whereon the abovesaid Edmund Alcok then sought against the aforementioned Nicholas Webster the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances in the abovesaid form etc., and wherefore he said that he himself was seised of the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee and right in time of peace in time of the now lord king by taking thereof esplees to the value etc., and that such is his right he offered etc.; and the abovesaid Nicholas Webster tenant by his warranty denied the right of the abovesaid Edmund Alcok and his seisin when etc., and all etc., and whatever etc., and greatly concerning the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances as of fee and right, and he put himself on the grant assize [IMG 8497] of the lord king and sought the recognition to be made thereof whether he has greater right to hold the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances to him and his heirs as tenant thereof by his warranty as those he held or the abovesaid Edmund Alcok to have those 100 acres of land with appurtenances as those he sought above etc.; whereon the same Edmund Alcok sought license thereof to emparl, and he had it. And afterwards the same Edmund Alcok came back into the same court here this same term by his abovesaid attorney, and the abovesaid Nicholas Webster although solemnly exacted did not come back but withdrew in contempt of court and made a default, whereby it was considered that the abovesaid Edmund Alcok recover his seisin against the aforementioned Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas concerning the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances to hold to the same Edmund Alcok and his heirs quit of the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas and his heirs and also of the abovesaid Nicholas Webster and his heirs and that the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas have from the land of the abovesaid Nicholas to the value etc., and that the same Nicholas be in mercy etc. By pretext of which certain recovery the abovesaid Edmund Alcok entered into the same 100 acres of land with appurtenances and was thereof seised in his demesne as of fee, the estate of which certain Edmund Alcok of and in that 100 acres of land with appurtenances the same John Garneys now has; and afterwards the abovesaid Edmund Rokewode died; and the abovesaid John Rokewode and Thomas survived him and still are surviving and in full life; and further the same John Garneys says that the said recovery had by the aforementioned Edmund Alcok against the aforementioned Edmund Rokewode, John Rokewode, and Thomas of the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances in the manner and form abovesaid is the same demise that the abovesaid Roger by his abovesaid writ above supposes, and this he is ready to verify, wherefore he seeks judgment if the abovesaid Roger ought to have his abovesaid action against him against the abovesaid recovery etc.
And the abovesaid Roger says that the abovesaid plea of the abovesaid John Garneys pleaded above in bar of his abovesaid action in the manner and form abovesaid is less sufficient in law to which he has no need nor is bound by law to answer, and this he is ready to verify, wherefore he seeks judgment and seisin to be adjudicated to him of the abovesaid 100 acres of land with appurtenances on account of that default of a sufficient answer etc.
And the abovesaid John Garneys, because he alleged sufficient matter in bar of the abovesaid action of the abovesaid Roger above, which he is ready to verify, which certain matter the abovesaid Roger does not deny nor does he answer to it in any way but wholly refuses to admit that verification, seeks judgment and that the abovesaid Roger be precluded from his action abovesaid etc. And because the justices here want to advise themselves of and on the premises before they render judgment thereof, day is given to the parties abovesaid here on the octaves of St. Michael to hear thereof their judgment, because the justices here thereof are not yet etc. At which day here came both the abovesaid Roger and the abovesaid John Garneys by their abovesaid attorneys, and thereon because the justices here want to advise themselves further of and on the premises before they render judgment thereof, further day is given to the abovesaid parties here until the octaves of St. Hilary to hear their judgment thereof, because the justices here thereof are not yet etc. At which day here came both the abovesaid Roger and the abovesaid John Garneys by their attorneys abovesaid and thereon because the justices here want to advise themselves further of and on the premises before they render judgment thereof, day is given further to the parties here until 15 days after Easter to hear their judgment thereof, because the justices here are not yet thereof etc. At which day here came the abovesaid Roger and the abovesaid John Garneys by their attorneys and thereon because the justices here want to advise themselves further of and on the premises before they render judgment thereof, day is given further to the abovesaid parties here until the Octaves of Holy Trinity to hear their judgment, because the justices here thereof are not yet etc. At which day here came both the abovesaid Roger and the abovesaid John Garneys by their abovesaid attorneys [simply stops]