Scope and Content
Abstract of title to an estate in Cranfield, late Pancost’s
(I) Pedigree for Millard against Pancost
- John Pancost married Ann as his second wife who survived him and married John Millard in December 1795;
- Richard Pancost, eldest son of John by his first wife – his eldest son was William Pancost;
- Thomas Pancost – son of John by his first wife and devisee of his Cranfield lands;
- William Pancost, son of John by his first wife and devisee of his Wavendon [Buckinghamshire] lands – he married Mary and died leaving her and three daughters including Mary and Elizabeth, his executors were Thomas Sharman, William Stopp and William Swannell;
- John Pancost – son of John by his first wife, he left as heir Mary, who married William Swannell
(II) R6/15/3/2
(III) R6/15/3/3
(IV) R6/15/3/4
(V) Indorsement on R6/15/3/4 that a 3100 part repayment had been made to Abraham Bigg
(VI) R6/15/3/5
(VII) R6/15/3/8
(VIII) R6/15/3/9
(IX) R6/15/3/10
(X) R6/15/3/12
(XI) R6/15/3/13
(XII) R6/15/3/14
(XIII) R6/15/3/15
(XIV) R6/15/3/16
(XV) R6/15/3/17
(XVI) R6/15/3/18
(XVII) R6/15/3/19
(XVIII) Indorsement of 29 December 1697 on R6/15/3/16 of part repayment of £80
(XIX) R6/15/3/20
(XX) R6/15/3/21
(XXI) R6/15/3/22
(XXII) R6/15/3/23
(XXIII) R6/15/3/24
(XXIV) R6/15/3/25
(XXV) R6/15/3/26
(XXVI) R6/15/3/27
(XXVII) Will of William Pancost of 31 December 1718 devising to his eldest son Richard all his estate in Wavendon [Buckinghamshire], Walton [Buckinghamshire], Cranfield and Aspley Guise for 71 years – the will was not executed
(XXVIII) Will of Richard Pancost of 26 August 1741 devising his Cranfield estate to his brother John
(XXIX) Will of John Pancost of 30 September 1780 devising to his son Thomas his estate in Cranfield chargeable with an annuity of £30 to his wife Ann for her life
(XXX) Order in Chancery of 21 June 1793 in the case of John Millard and Ann, his wife v John Pancost and others that John Pancost’s estate in Cranfield be sold
(XXXI) Manor of Cranfield court roll of 25 October 1721 – Susannah Field, widow, surrendered on 2 November 1721 32 acres in Cranfield and a close called Birminghalls lately divided into three and containing 12 acres with a way from Postern Cross Lane to the use of Joseph Field, gentleman and John Field, his son to which land they were then admitted
(XXXII) Manor of Cranfield court roll of 31 January 1736 – surrender by Joseph Field of all his copyhold lands in Cranfield (except those in an indenture quadripartite of 15 October 1730 settling them on the wife of John Field) to John Field upon condition that John pay £500 to Sarah Field
(XXXIII) Manor of Cranfield court roll of 29 May 1770 – admission of Charles Ventris Field on the death of his father to his copyhold lands
(XXXIV) Manor of Cranfield court roll of 16 July 1770 – surrender by Charles Ventris Field on 11 July 1770 of Birminghalls Close to the use of John Smith of Cranfield and admission of John Smith
(XXXV) Manor of Cranfield court roll of 19 May 1779 – surrender by John Smith of Burminghales Close to the use of John Pancost and his admission
(XXXVI) Manor of Cranfield court roll of 20 June 1785 – death of John Pancost presented and surrender to the use of his will of Burminghales Close
(XXXVII) “It appears by the admission 25 October 1721 that Joseph Field and John Field were admitted as Joint Tenants and that on the 5 March 1733 Joseph Field surrendered to John Field all his copyhold estate except those mentioned in an indenture dated 15 October 1730 settled by way of jointure on the wife of John Field as by relation thereto and to the surrender will appear upon condition that he should pay to Sarah Field £500 in 3 months. It is therefore submitted to you, whether it should not be satisfactorily proved, that John Field mentioned in the admission of 31 January 1736, is the same John Field who is called in the admission of 25 October 1721 the son and heir apparent of Joseph Field and whether the purchaser should not have a release for the £500 legacy and likewise the settlement of the 15th October 1730 and the surrender by way of jointure as it is called – none of which it is said can be produced, nor can it be shewn that the £500 was ever paid”.
“Notwithstanding it is found by the Homage that John Pancost made a surrender to the use of his will, yet the Steward who held that copy says no surrender was produced nor is there any amongst the Rolls not is it known whether the Testator made any Surrender to the use of his will or not”.
“You’ll be pleased to advise on this Abstract on the part of a purchaser and give you opinion whether a Marketable Title can be made to all the Premises contained in the annexed particulars and if such a Title can be made be pleased to point out the Form of Conveyance and the necessary parties?”
(XXXVIII) “I do not perceive any objection to the title of the late John Pancost as devisee of his brother Richard to the freehold messuage and lands that were conveyed to William Pancost the father as a purchaser by the indentures of lease and release of the 13 and 14 May 1698 and 28 and 29 May 1700. I find from the office copy of the Master’s report and Order or further directions in the case Millard v Pancost that an inquiry was directed as to what freehold estate or other estate the testator John Pancost died seized of and whether the plaintiff Ann, his widow, now the wife of John Millard was dowable out of any and which of the said estates. The report states the will and that the testator at the time of making thereof was seized and died seized of certain lands in Wavendon and Walton and that the same were in the occupation of the person therein named and after that statement, some words follow merely stating in whose occupation the aforesaid premises in Cranfield and the said close of copyhold land in East End aforesaid were which would naturally have followed his answer to the inquiry as to the testator’s estate therein so that there should seem to have been a clerical error in the copy made from the draft of the report. It is desirable, if possible, to have some explanation of this. So far as appears John was seized in fee simple of the above purchased premises in Cranfield at the time of his will and death and he having devised them to his second son Thomas in fee, subject to an annuity to Ann, the testator’s wife, for her life and the court ordered them to be sold for payment of the testator’s debts. I conceive that a good title may be made to a purchaser (paying his purchase money into the Bank in the Accountant General’s name) by deeds lease and release and fine from Thomas Pancost, his mother and her second husband of the freehold parcels in Cranfield mentioned in the particular of sale which appears to be the same as comprised in the abovementioned conveyance to William Pancost”
“With regard to the copyhold land I suppose there is no doubt about its having been in the possession of John Field for many years before and at the time of his death. If so, the title of Charles Ventris Field as his customary heir, may, as it seems to me, be safely admitted and I think that payment of the £500 mentioned in the surrender from Joseph to John Field in 1736, may be presumed. The title then would appear sufficiently deduced to John Pancost the testator, but there being no surrender to the use of his will entered on the Court Rolls, I do not see how a good title can be made till his granddaughters, the children of his deceased son William (I take it for granted the customary descent is to the eldest son) come of age. In this view of the case, I should think the court would direct a reference to the Master to inquire into the circumstances and if a good title cannot be made, to set a value on the copyhold to be deducted from the amount of the purchase money, the solicitors mentioned in the particular having, I imagine, transferred to one person. Michael Bentley, Lincoln’s Inn 11 November 1799”
(XXXIX) “The death of Ann Millard stated in Mr Millard’s letter of the 18th instant, has rendered a fine unnecessary. The purchaser may, after confirmation of the premises accruing to him as such, pay his purchase money into the bank (without admitting the title and on terms of its not being paid out without notice to him) should the person stated in the above letter to be the grandson and heir of John Pancost be willing to join with Thomas Pancost in surrendering the copyhold to the use of the purchaser and the purchaser may after surrender consent to the money being disposed of by the court. The heir’s concurrence will be founded on an agreement that it shall be without prejudice to his title to a proportion of the purchase money, or its being made applicable to the court, that he was intitled to the land. In case of his refusal to concur, I think there should be an application for a reference of the title to the Master in order to a deduction out of the purchase money of the value that may be set on the copyhold. Michael Bentley 21 November 1797”.
(XL) “Mr Bentley will be pleased to consider Mr Mullin’s letter of the 20 December 97 and also the pedigree left herewith. He will also advise on the questions etc marked in red ink and say if they are material to have answered. The object the purchaser had in view when he bought the estate was that upon payment of the purchase money he might have an immediate conveyance as he has contracted for a resch [?] – now it will not answer his purpose to pay the money into court where it may lie for many years until he obtains a perfect conveyance. The purchase will not be worth having unless a title can be also made to the copyhold and therefore he will not consent to a reference to the Master to set a value on the copyhold as mentioned in your opinion of 11th November for unless he can give a clear title to the copyhold he must give up the purchase of the whole. You’ll therefore advise what steps he should take? If you wish to see the devise, orders etc they shall be sent to you”.
(XLI) “It is stated that Joseph and John Field were admitted as Joint tenants in fee to the close called Birminghales in the year 1721 and it appears that John survived Joseph and that the court rolls represent (indeed I have no doubt that the homage presented) Charles Ventris Field to have been the heir of John. It is further stated that Charles Ventris Field surrendered surrendered to the use of John Smith and his heirs (an heir can surrender before admittance) who was admitted and surrendered to the use of the testator John Pancost in fee. I am inclined to think that this copyhold close was part of the premises settled or agreed to be settled by way of jointure on the wife of John and as such excepted out of the surrender made by Joseph to John in 1736 as it is asserted that the settlement cannot be found, all that the purchaser can do, I think, is to satisfy himself, by reference to the court rolls, that the surrender referred to as connected with the settlement was not presented or if it was, that it did not impeach the title of Charles Ventris Field. This seems to me the only matter of moment unexplained the heir of the testator John Pancost being before the court and capable of being subjected to convey by that court for paying the purchase money into the bank; I think the purchaser cannot support objections to the title unless there be an entry of such supposed surrender which should shew a title adverse to that of the heir of John Field. Besides, I conceive that if there was a decisive objection to the title to the copyhold parcel of land, the purchaser would be compellable to accept a conveyance of the freehold farm and lands on having the value of the copyhold deducted, this small parcel of copyhold not appearing absolutely necessary to the enjoyment of the freehold and so not of the essence of the contract. Michael Bentley 9th January 1798”.