There was obviously a dispute as to whether James had power to sell an
interest in then property after John's death. John being 'seised in
demesne as of fee' means that he was absolute owner (in fee simple or
possibly fee tail), whereas his opponent was alleging he only had a life
interest under a settlement, that is an estate for life. If the property
was of freehold tenure (rather than leasehold), John's interest would be a
freehold, even though it was only for the term of his life.
I think your problem is you are confusing tenure and estate. The tenure
(freehold, leasehold or copyhold) is concerned with the nature of what was
owned, in particular what obligations there were of service (e.g. rent) to
a landlord, the lord of the manor or a superior lord. Your estate is the
period for which you own it. If you have an estate in fee simple you own
it for even. If in fee tail, it is as long as you (or a previous grantee)
has lineal descendants.
I would suggest you look at a text book on land law, preferably not too
recent, for further explanation of tenures and estates. These are
technical legal terms.
Peter King
----- Original Message -----
From: Brockett <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 25 October 2001 15:01
Subject: freehold and demesne as of fee
> There seems to be a difference between these two descriptions of John
Smith's
> tenure (from a Chancery bill of 1652). Is there enough quoted here to say
what
> it is?
>
> 1. John Smith was seised of the Manor landes and premisses aforesayd as of
his
> freehold for the tearme of his life And that the reuersion therof
expectant vpon
> his death was settled vpon James Smith & his heires.
>
> 2. John Smith pretendeth and giveth out in speeches that hee is seized in
his
> demesne as of fee and in the Manor & premisses aforesayd And that the said
James
> Smith had noe power nor title to sell or Convay the reuersion therof vnto
> William Brown.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian Brockett
>
|