DEVON-L Archives

Archiver > DEVON > 2009-08 > 1249897984


From: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <>
Subject: Re: [DEV] Another catalogue explanation please
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:53:04 +0100
References: <4A7E4BC9.1090102@ihug.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <4A7E4BC9.1090102@ihug.com.au>


(1) always indicates the person(s) giving the property and (2) the persons receiving it (so in this case Tuckfield is the lessor and Lewis and Matthews are the lessees, BUT this does not hold true if there are more than 2 parties - ie if you find (3) or higher. However in those cases it is normal to make it clear what their involvement in the transaction is.

This is actually a lease for three lives, ie a lease that will last for as long as the persons named in it remain alive (Waymouth, Luscombe and Matthews). It was the custom to phrase such leases as being for a term of 99 years, determinable after the death of the longest-lived of the three named 'lives'. These 'lives', normally quite young people with long lives ahead of them, did not have an ownership interest in the lease (their lives were just the measure of the lease's term) - for so long as they stayed alive, and the lease remained in existence, it could be sold to or inherited by other people. However it was common for the lessee to name, say, himself, his wife and a son, or himself and 2 children, and such leases were commonly inherited by the second and third lives in succession.

It's slightly unusual that one of the lessees, Sarah Lewis, is not herself a 'life' named in the lease - the effect is that if Waymouth, Luscombe and Matthews all suddenly died Lewis would no longer have a lease. Perhaps she is elderly and likely to die soon, and it was thought better to name three younger people.

Many tenants, when one or two of the lives had died, would buy an extension, substituting more 'lives' for those who had gone.

Matt Tompkins


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Robyn Waymouth
Sent: 09 August 2009 05:09
To:
Subject: [DEV] Another catalogue explanation please

I've found lots of references to my WAYMOUTH family in the A2A / Devon
Record Office catalogue - many relating to property transactions, but
I'm struggling to understand them. Is there a "formula" in how these
are described?

Here's another.

In this case of a lease, I assume (1) is leasing the property to (2) -
or is it the other way about - or are (1) & (2) leasing it from KL & WM?

After 99 years does the property revert to KL and WM?

How does young Caleb get involved? He's Sarah's nephew and was
subsequently a beneficiary of her will, but this property is not mentioned.

*Z1/19/2/15* /23 May 1803/


EXETER (Holy Trinity).
Lease for 99 years determinable as below.
(1) Elizabeth Tuckfield of Fulford, spinster.
(2) Sarah Lewis, widow and William Matthews, hotpresser both of the City
of Exeter.
Dwelling houses with the gardens and courtlages adjoining built by
George Coade on the North side of Magdalene Street.
For life of Caleb Bryant Waymouth age 22 yrs.
In reversion of Kelland Luscombe and said William Matthews.
Consideration: £120.
Rent: £6. 6s. 8d.

Regards, Robyn

This thread: