Court proceedings: Heyman vs. Gomeldon - Court of Chancery
1673 Henry Heyman, plaintiff; William Gomeldon Thomas Gomeldon, and Sir Peter Heyman, defendants.Sir Henry Heyman, the Plaintiff's father, was seised in Fee, or in Tail, of the Manors and Lands in the Bill mentioned, being of the yearly Value of 400l. and died seised thereof about fourteen years last past, (the same being, as alledged, Gavelkind) that after his Death it descended to Sir Peter Heyman, and to Robert Heyman, and to the Plaintiff Henry Heyman, who were the Sons and Coheirs of Sir Henry Heyman, according to the Custom of Gavelkind, the said Henry, the now Plaintiff, being then an Infant, who upon his said Father's Death, was intitled to a third Part of the Premisses into three Parts to be divided, according to the said Custom.
That about six years last past, Sir Peter and Robert Heyman entered on the Premisses, and received the Rents and Profits thereof ever since, and therefore ought to give the Plaintiff an Account of his third Part.
That about the year 1670, Sir Peter and Robert Heyman sold two Thirds of the Premisses (during the minority of the Plaintiff) to WIlliam Gomeldon and his Heirs, or to Thomas and his Heirs, in Trust for William, by Virtue whereof they became intitled to the said two Thirds, as Tenants in Common with the Plaintiff, who was intitled to the other Third, but they combining with Sir Peter to suppress the Plaintiff's Title, have possessed themselves of the Manor-House, Deeds, and Writings, and Rents, and refuse to give the Plaintiff any Account, pretending that the Permisses were disgaveled and made descendable at Common Law, and that the Whole was conveyed to them by Sir Peter and Robert Heyman.
That 350l Part of the Purchase-Money, was, by the Order of Sir Peter and Robert, left in the Hands of the Defendant William, to pay to the Plaintiff, in Satisfaction for his third Part, if he would discharge the same.
And now for a Discovery, &c, and Relief, he exhibited this Bill.
The Defendant answered to Part, and pleaded to the Rest, SS. That as to all the Manors and Lands in the Billl mentioned, to which the Plaintiff makes any Title, or whereby he seeks a Discovery of their Title, of their Tenure, or any Deeds or Evidences concerning the same; the Defendants plead, that WIlliam Gomeldon is a Purchaser of the same, for a valuable Consideration to him and his Heirs without Notice, &c.
And that in Hillary Term 23 Car. 2 the Plaintiff brought his Ejectment for the third Part of the Premisses now claimed by the Bill against the now Defendant William Gomeldon, and the single Point was, whether any, or how much of the said Lands were of the nature, Tenure, or Custom of Gavelkind; which Point being tried, the Jury gave a Verdict for the Defendant and Judgment threeon, and pleads the same in Bar to the Plaintiff's Bill.
The Court allowed the Plea, to which the Plaintiff might reply, if he thought fit.
Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery during the time Sir Heneage Finch, Afterwards Earl of Nottingham, was Lor
Disclaimer: the owner of this website assumes no responsibility or liability for any injury, loss or damage incurred as a result of any use or reliance upon the information and material contained within or downloaded from this website. I have taken considerable care in preparing information and materials which are displayed in this website. However, I do not provide any warranty concerning the accuracy or completeness of any information contained herein.