Chancery Depositions (PRO C3/353/1 Greening Samon and King v King and Pilgrim)

22.5.1622 (Wednesday 22 May 1622)

document 16400005

(copy of the original undated the date has been taken from a date on the back of the document) answers of Edm King and Geo Pilgrim not a sufficient case for that they have not laid out any money nor taken any surrender of the lands and tenements in the bill nor he nor any other of his kinsfolk nor pretendeth to have any estate or interest in the same or any evidences or writings concerning the same nor be charged with any other matter in the bill doth answer in law and demand judgement of this court if that he shall be compelled to make any further answer of this bill to the court and prays to be dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf wrongfully sustained the said Geo Pilgrim answers for himself and says he thinks it to be true that Rich Underwood was in or about 38Eliz1 lawfully seised as of fee as by custom of the manor of Earls Colne in one customary tenement Goldes Gate and a certain croft Wallfields containing together 16a in Earls Colne which he had lately before purchased of Robt Litherland for less money as he believeth than Rich had of him which he conceives to be the land mentioned in the bill the said Rich Underwood being so seised he Rich on or about the last day 0.5.38Eliz1 did for the sum of 70li to him paid bargain and sell to him Pilgrim and his heirs the said tenement and premises and appurtenances and made assurance accordingly and Pilgrim believes that the said sum of 70li was then the very value of the tenement and lands for it has been reported to him that Rich Underwood offered to sell the tenement and lands for 50li and the parties to whom such offer was made would not give it Rich Underwood being a man very much indebted desired to make the most of the premises and to be still reputed the owner agreed with Pilgrim to make the assurance and upon this condition that if his heirs executors or assigns did at or before the feast of easter next repay the sum of 70li to Pilgrim at the tenement wherein he then dwelt then that the assurance should be void otherwise should be and remain absolute in full force and effect Rich Underwood living and being after the feast of easter and because he could not then alien the premises for more money he made the default of payment of the premises to be recorded at the next court baron for the manor after the feast of easter and Pilgrim was absolutely admitted with heirs in fee simple according to the truth of the bargain and custom of the manor then paying to the lord of the manor for his fine and to the steward for a copy of the assurance the sum of 10li at least which might have been saved if Rich Underwood would or meant to have repaid the sum of 70li and Pilgrim has ever since which is about twenty five years dwelt in the same tenement and enjoyed the same accordingly and he hath both in buildings and otherwise bestowed much cost thereupon and made it much better necessary and convenient for his own use notwithstanding Rich Underwood in his lifetime and after the feast of easter lived divers years and did exhibit his bill of complaint either in this court or in the court of Whitehall Westminster to be relieved concerning the premises but could not and he denies that he has at any time received any interest for his money or made any promise or protestation of Rich Underwood that he cared not for the tenement and lands or otherwise than to have them for the money lent as in the bill is untruly surmised but he bargained and always expected it or that to have his money at the time appointed or otherwise to have the premises in recompense and he denies that Rich Underwood trusted him or left in his care or custody any deeds evidences copies or writings concerning any other lands or tenements which descended or came to the complainants or any of them or that he does retain or keep these from the complainants or from any of them that such copies of court rolls concerning the premises which he has had he does justify the keeping of them for better defence of his right in and to the premises and concerning the felling of the trees or accounts to be made to the complainants of the profits of the premises he says that he has felled no trees at all but such as he might lawfully fell and then but a few and felled in the lifetime of Rich and Simon Underwood and also most of them were spent or employed and how just it is that these complainants which have no nor will not as he thinks paying of the honest and just debts and interests or damage for the forbearance of the same which Rich Underwood their father did owe whose heirs they pretend to be shall have account of the profits of the lands and tenements which he has honestly sold away humbly refers himself to the gave judgements of this court without that he made nay promise or protestation to Rich Underwood that the copyhold premises should return again to him and his heirs in any such manner as mentioned in the bill without that Rich died in the Fleet before the time of redemption (something has been erased at this point) that any matter or thing contained in the bill material or effectual for the defendants or either of them to answer etc asks that or be dismissed and get costs