Wills: 32 Henry VI (1453-4)

Calendar of Wills Proved and Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London: Part 2, 1358-1688. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1890.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

'Wills: 32 Henry VI (1453-4)', in Calendar of Wills Proved and Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London: Part 2, 1358-1688, (London, 1890) pp. 523-524. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/court-husting-wills/vol2/pp523-524 [accessed 26 April 2024]

ANNO 32 HENRY VI.

Monday next after the Feast of S. Katherine, Virgin [25 Nov.].

Moylle (William), gentleman.—Last will, whereby he directs that in the event of John Eversley and Isabella, wife of the same, levying a fine (fn. 1) in the King's Court at Westminster, and making a good estate in law to Thomas Eyre and others in fee tail in lands and tenements formerly belonging to Richard Eyre, father of the said Isabella, according to the terms of an agreement indented, his feoffees in trust of lands and tenements in the county of Kent shall convey the same to Margaret his wife for life, with remainder in fee tail to parties mentioned in the agreement aforesaid; otherwise the said lands and tenements shall remain in fee tail to John Moylle his son, with further remainder to Thomas Eyre, brother of the aforesaid Margaret. The rest of his lands and tenements in trust are also to go to his aforesaid wife for life, with similar remainder to John his son and Thomas Eyre in successive tail. Dated 16 April, 31 Henry VI. [A.D. 1453].
Roll 182 (10).

Monday next after the Feast of S. Dunstan, Bishop [19 May].

Waldern (Richard), esquire.—To Margaret his wife all his lands and tenements in the City of London for life; remainder to Elizabeth, Johanna, Elianora, and Margaret his daughters in tail; remainder to Richard his sister's son, son of Richard de la Feld, in tail; remainder to William Babthorp, esquire. Dated 8 April, A.D. 1454.
Roll 182 (22).

Footnotes

  • 1. 1 A fine resembled a recovery at Common Law in that both were fictitious actions; but it differed from a recovery in that, whilst the latter action at law was carried out through every stage of the process, a fine was a fictitious action commenced and then compromised by leave of the Court, whereby the lands in question were acknowledged to be the right of one of the parties. Again, both a fine and a recovery could bar an estate tail, but the former was inoperative as to the remainders and reversion. As to the procedure in a common recovery in the Court of Husting, see Part I., Introd., pp. xvii-xix.
PreviousTable of contentsNext