General question re 'feoffee to uses' and age

[Marayong]

I couldn't find an obvious forum for this query, so apologies if this is the wrong place .. but I know regulars here will know the answer.

What I wanted to know is if there was a lower age limit on appointing someone as a feoffee to uses? Specifically, did they have to be 'of age' or could a child or even infant be so appointed? The time period here is the late 1400s.

I did try a web search for the answer, but couldn't find a obvious answer.

Thanks in advance.

[Vance Mead]

The feoffees were the trustees, often lawyers or property managers, and they had to be of full age. The beneficiary, to whose use the grant was made, could be any age below 21, even an infant. When the beneficiary reached the age of 21 the feoffees/trustees were supposed to transfer the land to the beneficiary. Sometimes the trustees got greedy and kept it. Under the rules of Common Law, they were the owners. Then there would be a lawsuit in the court of Chancery for the beneficiary to recover the property.

Here is an example of a case in the Court of Chancery, (TNA date estimate 1486-1493, or 1504-1515). Henry, son and heir of Robert Twychyn, was suing Christopher Rudde, clerk, and others, feoffees to uses, for a messuage and garden in Chesham, Bucks.

This was a trusteeship, where Robert Twychyn, being seized of a messuage and garden in Chesham, had enfeoffed Christopher Rudde, clerk, John Awedon, and Thomas Nele to "the use and behoyff of your seid orator" or Henry Twychyn. They were supposed to return the property to the son and heir but they have refused "contrarye to all ryght & good consyence".
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/ChP/C1no171/IMG_0057.htm

[Marayong]

Thanks. There were two chancery cases, one with the plaintiffs being the executors of a will and in the other the plaintiff was the granddaughter of the testee & her husband, each vs. the same defendant, who was listed as the feoffee. The Feoffee was listed by name & also as the son & heir of his father (also named). Listing the defendant that way suggests to me that the original feoffee was the defendant's father & the defendant has inherited the feoffment. Is that plausible?

[Vance Mead]

Just so I understand correctly. The defendant, the son, was the feoffee, holding land for the use of the granddaughter. There was then a case in Chancery when he didn't transfer the property.

I think that's possible, though it seems to me there would be a conflict of interest to have son and heir also being the trustee for a third person.

If one of the feoffees/trustees died, there would be others to hold and manage the estate. If the beneficiary died, presumably there would be a next heir (a younger brother or sister) named in the original agreement.

[Marayong]

as far as I know the defendants & plaintiffs were unrelated. To avoid confusion, the two cases are:
1. John Godeard and Hamond Terrie, executors of James Hoo, plaintiffs, vs. Robert, son of Richard atte Leese, late feoffee to uses, defendant, re a messuage and land at Northcrosse in Eseling [Eastling], Kent
2. Laurence at Water & Agnes, his wife, daughter of John, son of James at Hoo. vs. Robert, son and heir of Richard at Lese, feoffee to uses, re a messuage and land in Esling

Re-reading them it is possible to interpret it that Robert was the feoffee, he has died and the exec & heirs of James Hoo have taken the heir of the late (?) Richard to court, perhaps to retrieve James' lands which illegally ended up in Richard's hands?

[Vance Mead]

The original is on AALT. Briefly:

John Godeard and Hamond Terrie, executors of James Hoo, of Eselyng, Kent, plaintiffs. James had a messuage and garden at Northcrosse, Eselyng. He enfeoffed John Lulle, of Eselyng, the elder; William Herte; and Richard atte Leese, to the use of James Hoo, to perform his will. John Lulle and William Herte died, leaving Richard atte Leese in sole possession. When Richard died the property descended to his son, Robert atte Leese. In his will, James Hoo desired that Robert atte Leese should transfer the land (shold make estate of the same messuage) to the executors and to John Lulle of Newlond (probably son of the John Lulle senior) and to John Cherche, and to allow Julian the widow of James to occupy the premises for her lifetime. After her death the property was to be sold and the money used for prayers for the soul of James Hoo and his parents. Julian received the income during her lifetime, but after her death the executors asked Robert atte Leese to transfer the property, but he refused. Hence the lawsuit.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no61/C1no61%20pt%201/IMG_0196.htm

Here is the other case, on this and the following page:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no61/C1no61%20pt%201/IMG_0228.htm

This is the same. Richard atte Leese had been the feoffee. After his death the owner at Common Law was his son Robert, who refused to transfer the property back to the plaintiffs. This is very wide and requires a lot of moving back and forth between the two images to read it.

[Marayong]

Thanks Vance. That makes sense. There were two Richard's and this helps resolve which was the one mentioned in the chancery cases. The 2nd one died 1526, so he can't be the one in the cases.

[hanes teulu]

"Ancient Funeral Monuments ...", John Weever 1576-1632, printed 1631

Poor original

[Marayong]

Nice find re the funeral monument, but that Richard dsp and was survived by two nieces. Also the previous century.