Mary Austen v Michael Denne

[MattD30]

I am hoping someone here can help me with a brief transcription/summary of the following images which are the start of a court case between Mary Austen and Michael Denne.

The first piece gives the year as 1656 and Mary Austen is the complainant bringing her 'Bill of Complaint' against Michael Denne and David Denne, and seems to refer to property in Littlebourne.

The second section (which is only the top of the first part of the Bill) seems to describe the background to the case, suggesting Michael Denne borrowed money from Richard Austen, Mary' father.

If anyone is able to tell me what is going on here or give me a brief summary/transcription it would be great. I have several other pages to this case but this short piece should be enough to help me workout who it relates to.

Many Thanks

Matt

[horselydown86]

Plaintiff is Mary AUSTIN widow.

Defendants are Michael DENN and David DENN.

Michael DENN was seized in fee of the remainder of a messuage and sixty acres of land at Littlebourne in Kent, expectant on the death of John DENN his father.

MD borrowed two hundred pounds from Richard AUSTIN, Mary's husband (now deceased) and for security demised the premisses (for 60 years) by Indenture dated 20 Feb 1637-8 to Richard AUSTIN.

Before the money was repaid to RA, he died having made the plaintiff MA his executrix.

It then gets complicated.  David DENN claims a precedent mortgage on the lands.

MA says this should have been satisfied by the rents and profits DD has received.

MA wants an account of rents and profits and either to have the money lent by RA repaid or to have the land freed from the equity of redemption.

She wants to pay RA's debts and legacies.

MA then died before the dispute was answered in Court.

Her executors were all daughters and co-heirs of RA:

Elizabeth Terry widow.
Margarett wife of Edward Dale.
Mary wife of Stephen Gillow.
Bennit wife of Allexander Davenson.
Anne Austin.

With MA's death her Bill abated but in 1657 the people listed above exhibited a Bill of Revivor.

[MattD30]

Plaintiff is Mary AUSTIN widow.

Defendants are Michael DENN and David DENN.

Michael DENN was seized in fee of the remainder of a messuage and sixty acres of land at Littlebourne in Kent, expectant on the death of John DENN his father.

MD borrowed two hundred pounds from Richard AUSTIN, Mary's husband (now deceased) and for security demised the premisses (for 60 years) by Indenture dated 20 Feb 1637-8 to Richard AUSTIN.

Before the money was repaid to RA, he died having made the plaintiff MA his executrix.

It then gets complicated.  David DENN claims a precedent mortgage on the lands.

MA says this should have been satisfied by the rents and profits DD has received.

MA wants an account of rents and profits and either to have the money lent by RA repaid or to have the land freed from the equity of redemption.

She wants to pay RA's debts and legacies.

MA then died before the dispute was answered in Court.

Her executors were all daughters and co-heirs of RA:

Elizabeth Terry widow.
Margarett wife of Edward Dale.
Mary wife of Stephen Gillow.
Bennit wife of Allexander Davenson.
Anne Austin.

With MA's death her Bill abated but in 1657 the people listed above exhibited a Bill of Revivor.

Hi

Thanks for that. I believe I can identify all the people named so I now know which member of the Denne family this refers to.

What does the end bit, "her Bill abated but in 1657 the people listed above exhibited a Bill of Revivor" mean?

I have several more images of the continuation of this document so can post them if it will help establish more details.

Thanks again

Matt

[horselydown86]

What does the end bit, "her Bill abated but in 1657 the people listed above exhibited a Bill of Revivor" mean?

An action at law becomes inoperative (abates) when the plaintiff dies.

However, in this case, Mary AUSTIN's executors have revived the legal action by exhibiting a Bill of Revivor.

This (most likely) would have contained largely the same information and allegations as Mary's original Bill, but with the executors/co-heirs named as the plaintiffs and with extra statements to show that they were Mary's true legal executors.

Any relevant actions which had occurred in the case since the original Bill would have also been added to bring it up-to-date.