Author Topic: Griffith's valuation - shared parcels?  (Read 153 times)

Offline oldohiohome

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Griffith's valuation - shared parcels?
« on: Saturday 09 February 19 17:45 GMT (UK) »
I have found two parcels bracketed together on Griffith's Valuation of Ballyneddan Townland, Kilbroney Parish, Co. Down, and also in the first three Revision Books, although the tenants' names are different. This persists in the Revision Books even when one of the tenants dies and is replaced.

Does anyone know for sure what this means, or can take a guess? My guess is they split the rent, as shown on Griffith's - I will attach the whole image. And in the first book, which won't show in the image.

Was this common, were the people necessarily related or what?

I will attach the first Valuation Revision Book screenshot to the next post.
Cambridgeshire: Billups, Cropley; Derbyshire: Jenkinson, Gratton; Co Down: O'Rourke, Rodgers, Cunningham

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline oldohiohome

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Griffith's valuation - shared parcels?
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 09 February 19 17:46 GMT (UK) »
here is the image of the same parcel in the first Revision Book
Cambridgeshire: Billups, Cropley; Derbyshire: Jenkinson, Gratton; Co Down: O'Rourke, Rodgers, Cunningham

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Sinann

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,169
    • View Profile
Re: Griffith's valuation - shared parcels?
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 09 February 19 19:44 GMT (UK) »
Have a look at this, it explains a lot about GV
https://leitrim-roscommon.com/GRIFFITH/Griffiths.PDF

Offline oldohiohome

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Griffith's valuation - shared parcels?
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 09 February 19 20:37 GMT (UK) »
Thank you. That was the first time I've seen where two people were jointly responsible for one piece of land. I couldn't picture a landlord or tenants agreeing to anything like that today, so I was a bit mystified.
Cambridgeshire: Billups, Cropley; Derbyshire: Jenkinson, Gratton; Co Down: O'Rourke, Rodgers, Cunningham

Offline Wexflyer

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • Not Crown Copyright
    • View Profile
Re: Griffith's valuation - shared parcels?
« Reply #4 on: Monday 11 February 19 01:12 GMT (UK) »
Thank you. That was the first time I've seen where two people were jointly responsible for one piece of land. I couldn't picture a landlord or tenants agreeing to anything like that today, so I was a bit mystified.

Have to disagree. "Tenants in common" is a standard option on many a contract I have seen.
BRENNANx2 Davidstown/Taghmon,Ballybrennan; COOPER St.Helens; CREAN Raheennaskeagh/Ballywalter; COSGRAVE Castlebridge; CULLEN Lady's Island; CULLETON Forth Commons;CURRAN Hillbrook; DOYLE Clonee/Tombrack; FOX Knockbrandon; FURLONG Moortown; HAYESx2 Walsheslough/Wexford; McGILL Litter; MORRIS Forth Commons; PIERCE Lady's Island; POTTS Bennettstown; REDMOND Ballygarrett; ROCHEx2 Wexford; ROCHFORD Ballysampson/Ballyhit; SHERIDAN Monadurtlow; SINNOTT Wexford; SMYTH Gerry/Oulart; WALSH Kilrane/Wexford

Offline shanreagh

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Griffith's valuation - shared parcels?
« Reply #5 on: Monday 11 February 19 07:47 GMT (UK) »
Thank you. That was the first time I've seen where two people were jointly responsible for one piece of land. I couldn't picture a landlord or tenants agreeing to anything like that today, so I was a bit mystified.

Have to disagree. "Tenants in common" is a standard option on many a contract I have seen.

Can be tenants in common in equal shares or tenants in common in unequal shares.  A different type of tenancy from  joint tenants.