Reference
R6/15/3/31
Title
Copy opinion
Date free text
1798
Production date
From: 1733 To: 1798
Scope and Content
Copy opinion of Matthew Flynn of Symonds Inn: “Cases depending either on construction or presumption are generally attended with trouble and admit different opinions, this seems in some respects to be of the latter description but the presumption is very strong and indeed amounts to evidence of possession in John Field if the facts stated in the case and plan accompanying it [R6/15/3/30] can be supported. It appears by the Plan that there are several closes of the name of Burminghalls and by the case that on 19th May 1779 John Pancost the testator was admitted to a close of that name on the Surrender of John Smith who on the 16th of July 1770 was admitted thereto on the Surrender of Charles Ventris Field Esq who on the 29th May preceding as admitted as the Son and Heir at Law of John Field to all his Copyhold Estate. Now it is evident by the Memorandum of 13th October 1746 (which was many years after the Surrender to Hobbs) that the said John Field was possessed of a Close called Burminghalls which he left to William Marriott and it is immaterial at this distance of time (52 years) how he became intitled whether under the surrender of 15th March 1733 from his Father Joseph and Admission thereupon in 1736 [marginal notes: they are particularly descended. This admission partly describes the premises] or as his Customary heirs by descent as by descent seen without Admission he would have a complete Title against all the World but the Lord 2 Term Rep 198. [marginal note – he would not, because all the admissions of the Fields prior to this surrender have been searched and the premises particularly described]. But admitting the case doubtful it remains to be considered what chance of success any person setting up a claim to this Estate against the customary Heir or Devisee of John Pancost could have, since the Statute of Limitations 21st James which has been held to extend to Copyhold an Ejectment could not be maintained. And as to a plaint in nature of an Assize very little could be expected from such a proceeding for as surrenders are generally considered as Common Law Conveyances reasoning from Analogy to the determination in Dalby v King 1st Case in 1st Hom 7 Blackstones Leposts where it hath been held that to maintain a Writ of Wright the claimant must show an Actual Seisin in himself or his Ancestors by taking the asplees, it is clear that none but the customary Heirs of Charles V Field could show such Seisin in their Ancestor and such Heirs would be barred by the Surrender to and Admission of John Smith in 1770. Therefore under all the circumstances of this case I am of Opinion that the Devisee of John Pancost has a good Title to the Estate in question and that he together with the Heirs at Law of the Testator (no surrender to the use of his Will appearing on the Court Rolls) can make a good Title to a purchaser”.
“Lyford v Coward 1st Cesnon 195 which does not appear to have been contested or denied by any subsequent decision although not exactly in point shows the Opinion of the Courts in cases of uninterrupted possession for a series of years”.
Level of description
item