Richard v William (1335)

Reference: Richard v William (1335) 9 Edw. 3. 14

Also referenced as:
  • Folio no 14a
  • Plea no 18
  • Seipp no 1335.041

Court of Common Pleas ↗
Easter Term, 1335

Before (the judges sitting on the bench)

Counsel (the barristers representing the parties)

  • Robert Parvyng, Sjt on behalf of Richard Malom and his wife Joan (the Plaintiffs)
  • John de la Rokele, Sjt on behalf of William (the Defendant)

Summary of the facts

Richard Malom and his wife Joan brought a writ against William, and demanded certain tenements, and counted that Andrew gave the same tenements to John and his wife Anable to them and to the heirs of their two bodies, in the time of Edward I, and he made the descent from John and Anable to Cicile as to daughter and heir, and from Cecile to Joan as to daughter and heir who now demanded together with her husband Richard.

Arguments submitted by counsel

John de la Rokele —

In the Michaelmas term of the sixth year, the same Richard and Joan brought a writ of aiel against the same William and demanded the same tenements of the death of the same Anable, to which writ he appeared, by which writ they supposed that Anable was seised as of fee simple and died of such estate.  Therefore, we do think that the plaintiffs would be received to this writ, by which they supposed that she had only fee tail.

Chief Justice Herle —

It could be that she had fee tail and also fee simple, and also it would be harsh law [“fort Ley”] that, if they had seen at that time that they had made a mistake in their suit, so that they were nonsuited, that they would thereby be ousted of an action.  Therefore answer.

John de la Rokele —

Sir, we make protestation that we do not acknowledge that the tenements were given in fee tail in the time of such king as the plaintiffs had counted, and that in a certain year in the time of Henry III, before Sir Richard of Milton and his companion justices assigned to take assizes in the county of York, Robert, grandfather of William, the defendant, whose heir he was, brought an assize of novel disseisin in the time of Henry III and placed in view the same tenements now placed in view, against John, to whom the plaintiffs supposed the gift to have been made, and Douce his wife, who was the same woman whom they now name Anable, and by the verdict of the assize he recovered the same tenements against them, of a disseisin made to him a long time before Andrew gave etc., and we demand judgment, since his ancestor had recovered of an earlier right etc., if the plaintiffs can demand anything.

Robert Parvyng —

We took our title from a gift made to John and Anable his wife, and the defendant alleged a recovery that was rendered against John and Douce his wife, and the recovery that was rendered against John and Douce could not defeat the tail that was made to John and to Anable.  Therefore we demand judgment.  And to what the defendant says that Anable was the same person, he would not get to saying that, because a man can have only one baptismal name etc.


Norman French (original text)

English (translation)

Chief Justice Herle —

Homme poet a divers temps aver divers nosmes mes nemy par baptisme: car poet estre qe son nosme de baptisme fuit Anable, et qe ele fuit de xl. ans avant ceo qe ele fuit confirme, et adonque son nosme change et ele adonque nosme Douce, etc.

Chief Justice Herle —

A man can at different times have different names but none by baptism: for it could be that her baptismal name was Anable, and that she was for 40 years before she was confirmed, and then her name changed and then she was named Douce, etc.

Text of judgment is Crown Copyright ©.  Presentation, mark-up and all other content is copyright © Deed Poll Office Ltd.

Orders of the court

Order accordingly.