Archiver > OLD-ENGLISH > 2006-01 > 1137832481

From: "Tompkins, M.L." <>
Subject: RE: [OEL] Land transfer on death
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:34:41 -0000

Hello Kevin,

it's difficult to be sure from just a list of parties, but yes, you're right - the number of Richardson parties to the 1637 deed does suggest that they all have interests under a family settlement. They aren't necessarily all co-owners - it's more likely that John is the current life tenant and Thomas and Edward have reversions or eemainders, that is future interests which will only become ownership when the life tenant has died, possibly only if he dies without issue (in Edward's case possibly not until Thomas has also died), or in the case of the widow a life interest in part of the property under a kind of jointure. But that's just speculation - one would have to read the deed to be sure.

The 1623 document might also be creating a settlement, but because it has only 2 parties it may just be a simple outright transfer of land from father to son. it may be that some deduction can be made from the fact that the deed is a Bargain and Sale, and not some other form of documentation, but I don't know enough about conveyancing practice at this period to say.



From: Kevin Richardson [mailto:]
Sent: Sat 21/01/2006 03:35
To: Tompkins, M.L.;
Subject: Re: [OEL] Land transfer on death

Thanks again for the in depth reply Matt,

If you take the following land sale as an example:

Bargain and sale by John Richardson of Thulston, gent, Frances Richardson,
widow, mother of the said John, Thomas Richardson and Edward, brother of
John, to Sir John Stanhope of Elvaston, for £110 (dated 1637)

It apears that John, his mother Frances (subject of my email about "Mrs
Richardson") and his 2 brothers all hold an interest in the same piece of
land. I am trying to understand how such a compex ownership of the same
piece of land was formalized. Of the options that you mention, succession
can be eliminated, as only the heir would have ownership, by will can be
eliminated, as there was none (only an inventory, which mentions John and
Frances). This leaves some sort of settlement agreement made prior to the
death of the father, or your last option "inter vivos transfer ".

Another interesting one:

Bargain and sale by John Richardson, senior, of Thulston, gent., and John
Richardson, junior (dated 1623)

The John senior in this document is the deceased father of John in the first

I figure here that this could be a settlement agreement by John "senior" to
his son John "junior", possibly when he got married, whilst John "senior"
remained co-owner until his death, perhaps to ensure that his son could not
dispose of the land without his consent. In retrospect, this could be the
same reason that the first document shows co-owners.



This thread: