Reference
R6/15/3/41
Title
Abstract of title to Burminghales Close
Date free text
1798
Production date
From: 1746 To: 1798
Scope and Content
(I) Lease by John Field to William Marriott on 13 October 1746 as shown in a copy letter from Field in Campton to William Goodred: “I considered that you have more land in Perryfield, Eastall or Milside Season than other Field Seasons and if you had Edward Ambridge’s it would have made it more unequal still and whereas you was not willing to have Burminghall, therefore I let William Marriott have it. And I do let it unto William Marriott upon the same Condition as I did Edward Ambridge, excepting or excepted on the back of Edward Ambridge’s Agreement”
The abstract continues: “William Marriott in consequence of the above Letter or Agreement occupied the said Close called Burminghales from the date thereof as Tenant to John Field until his death which happened the latter end of the Year 1769 or the beginning of the Year 1770 during which time he regularly paid his rent to John Field for which he took Receipt from time to time and in such receipts there is a Credit given by John Field to the Tenant William Marriott for Land Tax and quit rent paid to the Lord of the Manor. The receipts together with the above Letter were given to the Solicitor for the Vendor of the above Close by the Daughter and Sole Executrix of William Marriott who lives at Cranfield and who together with several old Inhabitants at Cranfield remembers the fact of William Marriott having occupied the Close as Tetant of John Field from 1746 to 1770 the time of the death of John Field and that the same had been in John Field’s possession as owner thereof for many years previous thereto and as long as they can remember and after the death of John Field William Marriott continued Tenant to Charles Ventris Field his son and heir until he surrendered the Close to John Smith the 11th of July 1770. The Letter and receipts are in the custody of the Solicitor ready to be produced”
(II) Admission of 29 May 1770 of Charles Ventris Field as tenant at Cranfield manor court to estates belonging to John Field at Cranfield “but it does not appear by the Court Rolls that the Close called Burminghales is mentioned in the Admission”
(III) Presentment at Cranfield manor court on 16 July 1770 of absolute surrender by Charles Ventris Field out of court on 11 July 1770 of a close in Cranfield in East End called Burminghales containing 8 acres in occupation of William Marriott to the use of John Smith of Cranfield, yeoman, John Smith being admitted at court
(IV) Cranfield manor court 19 May 1779 absolute surrender by John Smith to the use of John Pancost of Sherington [Buckinghamshire], gentleman of Burminghales Close and admission of John Pancost
(V) Presentment at Cranfield manor court on 20 June 1785 that John Pancost had died having surrendered Burminghales Close to the use of his will of 30 September 1780 in which he devised it to his son Thomas Pancost subject to a £30 annuity to the testator’s widow and Thomas was admitted at the court
(VI) “Shortly after the death of John Pancost a Bill in Chancery was filed respecting his real and personal estate – a decree was made and various proceeding had when the court ordered that all his freehold and copyhold estates be sold before the Master when a freehold at Cranfield together with the said copyhold were sold together in one lot [to] a purchaser at £920”.
“We cannot find by the court rolls either the surrender or admission of John Field to the said copyhold close called Burminghales neither can we find the admission of Charles Ventris Field his customary heir thereto. The only evidence of title we can show beyond the surrender to and admission of John Smith in July 1770 is the long quiet and uninterrupted possession of John Field previous to and from the year 1746 till his death during which time he regularly received the rents of the tenant who paid the quit rents, Land Tax etc regularly and always had the same deducted from the rents which will appear by the original receipts and the letter or agreement of 1746 wil lshew that John Field was in possession previous thereto as it is there expressed - that he let it to William Marriott upon the same condition as he did Edward Ambridge excepting as excepted on the back of Edward Ambridge’s agreement”.
“Independent of the above facts any old inhabitants of Cranfield remember John Field to have been in possession during their memory”.
(VII) “Observations on the part of the purchaser. The preceding abstract has been delivered as an abstract of title to a copyhold estate. To the title of the freehold before delivered there appears to be no objection, but to the title to this copyhold close called Burminghales, the purchaser does object”.
“On 29 May 1770 Charles Ventris Field, the customary heir of John Field, was admitted to several estates of his late father John Field, which estates are particularly specified in his admission but this close called Burminghales is not mentioned nor are there any general words in the admission. The following is a copy of the rolls and of Charles Ventris Field’s admission”
“The Homage present that John Field deceased whilst he lived held of the Lord of the Manor by copy of court roll a copyhold estate and copyhold messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments lying and being in the Parish of Cranfield that were the copyhold estate of Joseph Field, gentleman, his late father deceased and to which estates and premises the said John Field deceased was admitted at a special court holden on 31 January 1736 on the surrender of the said Joseph Field deceased and which were all the copyhold estates of the said Joseph Field deceased. And also held a close of pasture (here follows a particular description) and to all which premises the said John Field was admitted at a court holden on 31 December 1744. And also held a piece of ground (here follows a particular description) to all which said last mentioned premises the said John Field was admitted at a court holden on 5 April 1757. And the homage present the death of John Field since the last court and that Charles Ventris Field is his only son and heir at law whereupon the said Charles Ventris Field is admitted. To hold to him, his heirs etc at the several yearly rents therein specified”.
“The premises in the admissions of the 31 January 1736, 31 December 1744 and the 5 April 1757 are all the copyhold premises of which John Field died seized. They are particularly described and there is no such piece as Burminghalls mentioned nor are there any general words in the admissions, in short all the premises described in the above admissions and in Charles Ventris Field’s admission are well known at this day. From hence it is evident that John Field did not die seized of this copyhold close called Burminghalls although he might have been in possession of it”.
“The first mention of this copyhold close called Burminghalls is John Smith’s admission on the 16 July 1770 on the surrender of Charles Ventris Field – although most undoubtedly none of the Fields had ever been admitted thereto nor had Charles Ventris Field a shadow of title to it as a copyhold estate [another hand interpolated – “yet the steward took it into his head to admit him to it at a rent of 1/2”] and it is remarkable that none of the premises to which any of the Fields were admitted are held at such a yearly quit rent as 1/2”.
“It is stated that John Field had been in possession of this close called Burminghalls previous to 1746 and till his death and that during all that time he regularly received the rents of the tenant who paid the quit rent, Land Tax and had the same deducted from the rent. This statement is incorrect for the quit rent in respect to Burminghalls was for the first time mentioned in Smith’s admission in July 1770 and it is observed that none of the premises to which any of the Fields were admitted are held at the same identical rent. With respect to the letter stated in the first sheet of the abstract it is contended that if it is or can be admitted as evidence in any court it is evidence of a mere possession only and not of title to a copyhold estate. John Field might himself have been tenant or an agent only and this close may for aught else appears, be freehold and the quit rent stated to be paid by John Field’s tenant and allowed by him out of the rent might be a thief rent or freehold quit rent payable to the Lord of the Manor or payable for other premises for it does not appear that it was 1/2 then. Under these circumstances your opinion is desired whether this is such a title to a copyhold estate as the purchaser is bound and can be forced to accept”.
(VIII) Opinion of J Mansfield of Temple, 2 November 1798: “The title to this piece of ground is very singularly circumstanced and it is very difficult to account either for the family of Field supposing it to be copyhold if it was not so, or for there being no appearance in the court rolls of its passing as copyhold if it was such and therefore possibly different opinions may be entertained upon the title but my own opinion is that the title is such as a purchaser is bound to accept. The very long possession by the family of Field would be very good evidence of a title to the premises as freehold if no act had been done by any of them causing it to
be copyhold. The acts that have been done by Charles Ventris Field and the persons claiming under him make it impossible for any of them to contend that it is not copyhold. The Lord of the Manor must, I presume, be very willing to have it so considered. I therefore think that unless some old settlement or will could be found shewing the title to the premises not to have been in John or Charles Ventris Field, the title desired under the letter will be considered as a very satisfactory one”.
Level of description
item