Thomas Stradling, armiger v. Giles Hille of Halsway, jr., armiger and John Trevylyon, jr., of Halsway: Easter term, 1537, Court of Common Pleas
The value of this case is substantial but not immediately obvious. The plaintiff had entered on the leasehold of the defendants, who had then ejected him, so that the plaintiff thus brought a case of trespass for breach of close. The issue of the case that was sent to the jury had to be sufficient in law to settle the dispute, and the issue was whether Edward Stradling, the father of the plaintiff, was seised in 1509 when he leased the property to Giles Hille (current defendant) and his then wife for 40 years. Hille maintained that Edward Stradling was so seised, and the seemingly necessary conclusion is that the lease thus made by the father in seisin as of fee would successfully last for the purported 40 years even if that was longer than Edward’s life (and Edward in fact died in 1535 whereas the lease would run through until about 1549).
The court allowed that issue, and Thomas Stradling’s argument was that his father was the beneficiary of a use (held to the use of him and his wife in fee tail, remainder to him in fee) when he made the lease, although the wife was then deceased. Thomas claimed to be the legitimate son of Edward and his then wife, so the effect of the beneficial fee tail would still continue. The seemingly necessary conclusion is that the court as of 1537 considered that a beneficiary of a use (at least when the beneficial interest was a fee tail) would not be able to create as firm a lease as could one who was seised in fee.
The situation came to a head when Edward Stradling the father died on May 8, 1535, a few months before the Statute of Uses was made law. Edward’s feoffees had by that time all died except one, who then held to the use of Thomas as the beneficiary of a fee tail. Within a week of Edward’s death the feoffee leased the land to Thomas Stradling, seemingly to give him a legal estate for the purpose of making an entry.
Since Thomas seemingly had a beneficial use interest in a fee tail after his father's death, the feoffee's lease to Thomas is itself interesting. Apparently, the feoffee leased the land to Thomas to give him a sufficient interest at common law that he could himself enter the land; otherwise the feoffee would have had to enter. Whether having Thomas enter was superior legally or simply more convenient I do not know. The fact that the court allowed this pleading, however, meant that at law in this situation a leasee of a feoffee could legitimately terminate the lease that had been granted by a now-deceased beneficiary.
Somerset. Giles Hille of Halsway in the abovesaid county, armiger, and John Trevylyon, jr., lately of Halsway in the abovesaid county, armiger were attached to answer Thomas Stradlyng, armiger, concerning a plea, why with force and arms they broke Thomas’s close and house at Halsway and depastured, trampled, and consumed his grass to the value of £6 lately growing there with certain beasts and overturned his property there with certain plows, whereby that Thomas lost the profit of his abovesaid property for a great time as well as cut and carried away his trees and underwood to the value of 60s. lately growing there, and inflicted other enormities on them to the grave damage of that Thomas and against the peace of the now lord king etc. And wherefore the same Thomas by Thomas Staunton his attorney complains that the abovesaid Giles and John on June 14 in the 27th year of the reign of the now lord king [June 14, 1535] with force and arms broke the close and house of the same Thomas at Halsway and depastured, trampled, and consumed his grass to the value etc., lately growing there with certain beasts, viz., with horses, oxen, cows, pigs, and sheep, and overturned his property, viz., 40 acres of land, there with certain plows, whereby the same Thomas lost the profit of his abovesaid property for a great time, viz., from June 14 in the 27th year abovesaid [June 14, 1535] until the day of the purchase of that Thomas’s original writ, scilt., October 13 then next following [October 13, 1535] continuing at divers days and times and as well they cut down and carried away trees, viz., 10 oaks, 10 ash trees, and underwood, viz., 40 carts of his underwood, to the value etc., lately growing there, and other enormities etc., to the grave damage etc., and against the peace etc., wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damage to the value of £20, and thereof he produces suit etc.
And the abovesaid Giles and John by John Pasmer his attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc., and as to the coming with force and arms as well as the cutting down and carrying away of the abovesaid 10 oak trees and 10 ash trees and 40 carts of underwood supposed above to have been done, the same Giles and John say that they in nothing are guilty thereof as the abovesaid Thomas complains above against them, and of this they put themselves on the countryside. And the abovesaid Thomas Stradling similarly. And as to the residue of the abovesaid trespass supposed above to have been done, the same Giles and John say that the abovesaid Thomas ought not to have his abovesaid action thereof against them, because they say that the abovesaid close and house as well as the places in which it is supposed that that trespass was done and at the time at which it is supposed that that trespass was done were a messuage and 40 acres of land with appurtenances in Halsway abovesaid whereof before the abovesaid time at which etc., a certain Edward Stradling was seised in his demesne as of fee and thus seised thereof before the time at which etc., scilt., August 28 in the first year of the reign of the now lord king [August 28, 1509] at Taunton in the abovesaid county demised the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances to the same Giles Hill and to a certain Agatha his wife to have and occupy, to himself and his assigns from the feast of St. Michael then next following until the end and term of 40 years then next following and fully to be completed, by virtue of which demise the same Giles and Agatha were thereof possessed, and the abovesaid Thomas Stradling claiming the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances by color of a certain charter of demise made to himself thereof for term of his life by the abovesaid Edward Stradlyng long before the abovesaid demise by the same Edward concerning the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances to Giles and Agatha in the abovesaid form whereas nothing of those tenements ever passed into the possession of the abovesaid Thomas Stradling by that charter in the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances before the abovesaid time at which etc., entered, on the possession thereof of that certain Thomas the same Giles in his own right and the abovesaid John Trevilyon as servant of that Giles and by his order afterwards, scilt., at the same time at which etc., re-entered onto the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances and depastured, trampled, and consumed the abovesaid grass then growing there with the abovesaid beasts and then and there overturned the abovesaid property with the abovesaid plows as well they might, and this they are ready to verify, [IMG 5394] wherefore they seek judgment if the abovesaid Thomas Stradling ought to have his abovesaid action against them.
And the abovesaid Thomas Stradling says that he ought not to be precluded from having his abovesaid action concerning the breaking of the abovesaid close and house and the depasturing, trampling, and consumption of the abovesaid grass as well as the overturning of the abovesaid property with the abovesaid plows against the aforementioned Giles and John by anything alleged before, because he says that long before the abovesaid demise is supposed to have been made and before the abovesaid time of the abovesaid trespass done, a certain John archbishop of Canterbury, John Dynham knight, Sapcote knight, John Bycknell knight, and Morgan Kydwelly gentleman were seised of the manor of Halsway with appurtenances in the abovesaid county whereof the abovesaid messuage and 40 acres of land with appurtenances are and at the abovesaid time at which etc., as well as from time whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary were parcel in their demesne as of fee to the use of the abovesaid Edward Stradling and Elizabeth at that time his wife and the heirs of the body of the same Edward and Elizabeth legitimately procreated, and for default of such issue to the use of the said Edward and his heirs in perpetuity to them, and the same archbishop, John Dynham, John Sapcotte, John Bycknell, and Morgan thus being seised thereof, afterwards and before the abovesaid time of the abovesaid trespass done, the abovesaid Elizabeth at Merthyr-mawr in the march of Wales in the county of Glamorgan died, and the abovesaid Edward survived her, after the death of which certain Elizabeth the abovesaid archbishop, John Dynham, John Sapcote, John Bycknell and Morgan were seised of the abovesaid manor with appurtenances whereof etc., in demesne as of fee to the use of the said Edward and the heirs of the bodies of the said Edward and Elizabeth legitimately procreated and for default of such issue to the use of the abovesaid Edward and his heirs in perpetuity, and they being thus seised thereof to the same use afterwards and before the abovesaid time at which etc., scilt., on August 28 in the first year abovesaid [August 28, 1509], the abovesaid Edward Stradling at Taunton abovesaid demised the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances to the aforementioned Giles Hille and Agatha his wife to have and occupy, to themselves and their assigns from the abovesaid feast of St. Michael the archangel then next following until the end of the term of the abovesaid 40 years then next following and fully to be completed, by virtue of which demise the abovesaid Giles and Agatha were thereof possessed, and afterwards and before the time at which etc., scilt., on May 8 in the [IMG 6597] 27th year of the reign of the now lord king [May 8, 1535] at St. Donatts in the county of Glamorgan abovesaid, the abovesaid Edward died, after the death of which certain Edward and before the time at which etc., the abovesaid archbishop, John Dynham, John Sapcote, John Bycknell, and Morgan re-entered on the abovesaid manor with appurtenances whereof etc., and were thereof seised in their demesne as of fee to the use of the abovesaid Thomas Stradlyng as to son and heir of the bodies of the abovesaid Edward and Elizabeth legitimately procreated and for default of such issue to the use of the right heirs of the said Edward in perpetuity, and afterwards and before the time at which etc., the abovesaid archbishop, John Dynham, John Sapcote, and John Bycknyll died seised of such estate in the abovesaid manor with appurtenances whereof etc., and the abovesaid Morgan Kydwelly survived them and held himself in in the manor abovesaid with appurtenances whereof etc., and was thereof alone seised in his demesne as of fee by the right of increase etc., to the abovesaid use, and that Morgan thus seised to the same use thereof afterwards and before the time at which etc., scilt., May 16 in the abovesaid 27th year [May 16, 1535] at Amesbury in the county of Wiltshire the same Morgan demised the abovesaid manor with appurtenances whereof etc., to the same Thomas Stradlyng to have and occupy to himself and his assigns from the abovesaid May 16 in the abovesaid 27th year [May 16, 1535] until the end and term of 30 years then next following and fully to be completed, by virtue of which demise the same Thomas Stradling was thereof possessed until the abovesaid Giles Hille and John Trevilyon on the abovesaid June 14 in the abovesaid 27th year [June 14, 1535] with force and arms broke the close and house of the same Thomas at Halsway abovesaid and depastured, trampled, and consumed his grass to the value etc., growing there then with his beasts and overturned his property, viz., 40 acres, there with the abovesaid plows, whereby the same Thomas lost the profit of his abovesaid property for the whole abovesaid time against the peace of the now lord king, as he above complained against him, without this that the abovesaid Edward Stradling at the abovesaid time of the abovesaid demise of the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances made by the same Edward to the aforementioned Giles and Agatha in the form abovesaid was seised of the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee as the abovesaid Giles and John Trevilyon alleged above, and this he is prepared to verify, wherefore because the abovesaid Giles and John above acknowledge the breaking of the close and house abovesaid and the depasturing, trampling, and consumption of the abovesaid grass as well as the overturning of his abovesaid property done with the abovesaid plows in the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances, the same Thomas Stradling seeks a judgment and his damages by occasion of that trespass to be adjudicated to him etc.
And the abovesaid Giles and John as before says that the abovesaid Edward Stradling at the abovesaid time of the abovesaid demise of the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances by that Edward to the aforementioned Giles and Agatha made in the abovesaid form was seised of the abovesaid tenements with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee as they alleged above, and of this they put themselves on the countryside. And the abovesaid Thomas Stradling similarly. Therefore as to the trying both of this issue and of the other abovesaid issue above joined between the abovesaid parties, it is ordered to the sheriff that he should make to come here on the morrow of the Ascension of the Lord 12 etc., by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. At which day came here 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 Octaves of Holy Trinity 12 etc., to recognize in the abovesaid form etc. At which day the jury between the abovesaid parties concerning the abovesaid plea was put in respite thereof here until this day, scilt., on the Octaves of St. Michael then next following unless the justices of the lord assigned to take the assizes in the abovesaid county by form of the statute etc., before that time come on Thursday next after the feast of St. James the Apostle last past at Ilchester in the abovesaid county, and now here at this day come both the abovesaid Thomas Stradlyng and the abovesaid Giles and John by their abovesaid attorneys, and the aforementioned justices at assizes before whom etc., sent here their record in these words: Afterwards on the day and place withincontained before John FitzJames knight and Thomas Willoughby knight justices of the lord king assigned to take the assizes in the county of Somerset by the form of the statute etc., came both the withinnamed Thomas Stradlyng in his proper person and the withincontained Giles Hylle and John Treyllyan by their attorney withincontained and the jurors of the jury whereof mention is made within exacted, certain of them came and certain of them did not come as appears in the panel; therefore the abovesaid jury is put in respite here until on the morrow of St. Martin for default of jurors, because none came; therefore let the sheriff have their bodies etc., and put on 10 such etc.