Latin from Manor court rolls please

[Bookbox]

Whereupon they say that they themselves were seised of the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances in their demesne as of fee and by right, at the will of the lords, according to the custom of the aforesaid manor, in time of peace in the time of the now Lord King, taking thereout profits to the value, etc.; and in which, etc; and thus they bring their suit, etc.

And the aforesaid William Goodwin, tenant by his own warranty, defends his right when etc., and thereupon further vouches to warrant Robert Sellars, who is likewise present in this court in his own proper person; and freely warrants to him the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances etc; and upon this the aforesaid John and Ralph seek against him, Robert Sellars, tenant by his own warranty, the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances; whereupon they say that they themselves were seised of the same two acres of land with appurtenances in their domain as of fee and by right, at the will of the lords, according to the custom of the aforesaid manor, in time of peace in the time of the now Lord King, taking therefrom the profits, etc.; and in which, etc.; and thus they bring their suit, etc.

[goldie61]

Thanks once again Bookbox.
More and more complicated!

Here's the next bit, which is the piece before the first one I posted.
This one now seems to bring in George Rogers as well!

Just one little piece more after this which follows the first piece I posted.

I find these manor court records quite frustrating, a they hardly ever mention the relationships between  people.

[Bookbox]

And the aforesaid Robert Sellars, tenant by his own warranty, comes and defends his rights, when etc.; and he says that the aforesaid Hugh Hunt did not disseise the aforesaid John Rogers and Ralph Sternedale of the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances as they John and Ralph by their aforesaid complaint and narrative have suggested above; and upon this he puts himself before the jury etc.; and the aforesaid Robert Sellars seeks permission to confer privately for an hour on the same day, and he is permitted etc.; and afterwards at the same hour the aforesaid George and John Rogers return here in the same court in their own proper persons, but the aforesaid Robert Sellars, when solemnly summoned, does not return but stays away in contempt of court and makes default; therefore it is judged that the aforesaid George and John Rogers should recover their seisin of the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances against the aforesaid William Rogers; and that the aforesaid William Rogers has of the lands of the aforesaid William Goodwin to the value etc; and further that the aforesaid William Goodwin has of the lands of the aforesaid Robert Sellars to the value etc; and the same Robert Sellars is in mercy etc.; and upon this the aforesaid George Rogers and John then and there sought an order to be made to them to have full seisin of the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances, by direction of the minister of the aforesaid court, and then and there it was granted to them returnable here; and afterwards, in fact on the same twenty-third day of June, came the aforesaid John and Ralph into that court in their own proper persons, and the minister of the aforesaid court, namely Richard Peeters, certified ...

[Bookbox]

... to the aforesaid court that he, by virtue of the order then directed to him on the said twenty-third day of June, had made over to the aforesaid George and John Rogers full seisin of the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances, just as was commanded by the aforesaid order;

(Then follows the final paragraph, already done above, reply #1).

The whole thing can be encapsulated in just a few bullet points, which I'll post later today.

[goldie61]

Good grief! Even more Rogers people!
Where did George suddenly come from?

Thank you so much for all this.

The idea of a few bullet points would be fantastic thanks Bookbox.
Perhaps then I'd be able to see the wood for the trees. 

Late now here - I shall be swirling this round in my head all night!

[Bookbox]

Well, it started off as 'a few bullet points', but inevitably it has got a bit longer, sorry!

With the help of Nat Alcock’s Tracing History through Title Deeds: a Guide for Family and Local Historians (2017, pp. 122-5):

1. William Goodwin and Sarah, manorial tenants, want to surrender their property to the use of John Rogers and Ralph Sternedale, but they can’t because it’s entailed. To get round this, they surrender it to William Rogers, as an intermediary.

2. John Rogers and Ralph Sternedale then bring a case against William Rogers, who is now ostensibly the tenant. They say the tenancy is theirs by right, and they were dispossessed by Hugh Hunt before William Rogers acquired it. John and Ralph demand a warranty from William Rogers so that they can re-enter the property.

3. To defend his own rights to the tenancy, William Rogers calls on William Goodwin (as the person who transferred it to him) to provide him with a warranty. But first William Goodwin has to call on a third party, Robert Sellars (known as the ‘common vouchee’), to vouch for his (Goodwin’s) original rights to the property.

4. John Rogers and Ralph Sternedale are now, in practice, in contention with Robert Sellars for a warranty for the property. They leave the court briefly to discuss with Sellars. When they return, Robert Sellars fails to appear and is therefore in contempt of court.

5. So William Goodwin’s and Robert Sellars’ support of William Rogers has failed. William Rogers cannot prove his right to the property, and judgment in the case is awarded to the plaintiffs George and John Rogers.

6. John Rogers and Ralph Sternedale are then admitted to the property as tenants.

All the parties are colluding. It’s not a real action, but a device to allow the manorial court to record the transfer of entailed property in a lawful way. (That may be why the amounts of money are left blank.) Hugh Hunt is fictional, and Sellars, the ‘common vouchee’, may be an employee of the court. Once the process is complete, the property is free of the entail, and John Rogers can transfer it wherever he wishes in future.

I’m not sure why George Rogers suddenly appears in the middle. It looks like there are three plaintiffs – George and John Rogers, and Ralph Sternedale. It may be an error (unlikely). Or maybe one is a trustee for the use of one of the others (but that is not stated).

Common recoveries are usually disappointing from the genealogy point of view, as much of the wording is standard and it’s rare to get relationships (other than ‘his wife’).

In case it helps, some of the documents catalogued on this link below relate to the same property Farrdoles.

https://calmview.derbyshire.gov.uk/calmview/TreeBrowse.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&field=RefNo&key=D2575%2fM

[goldie61]

No need for any apologies Bookbox.
This is great!
I never would have been able to work that out.

Although, as you say, it doesn't give any relationships between the people mentioned, it does at least place all those Rogers men at that place at that time.

Thanks also for the link.
I shall have to peruse it in detail.

I do know that in the will of William Rogers in 1707 he gives a close called 'Fardoles' to Edward Goodwin. I wonder possibly the son of the original William Goodwin in this 1671 piece.
This William Rogers in 1707 seems to have no children to pass anything on to, at least he doesn't mention any, and leaves most of his estate to his nephews.

This is the final portion which came after the first piece I posted.
I don't know if it adds, detracts, or is inconsequential to what has gone on before.
Thank you again for the time you have spent on this. It is greatly appreciated.

[Bookbox]

Sorry, I thought we'd finished! It looks as if William Rogers ends up with the property after all. This seems to fit with the later records that you have?

=====

And afterwards at the same court came the aforesaid John Rogers and Ralph Sternedale in their own proper persons, and they surrendered into the hands of the lords of the aforesaid manor by the rod, according to the custom of the same manor, the aforesaid two acres of land with appurtenances called Le Fardoles to the use and behoof of the aforesaid William Rogers, his heirs and assigns for ever; and upon this the aforesaid William Rogers sought three proclamations to be made for him, according to the custom of the aforesaid manor, and he was thenceforth admitted tenant; and at this court the first proclamation was made without any claim; and at a small court held at Newhaven in the aforesaid manor on the twenty-sixth day of June in the abovesaid year the second proclamation was made, without any claim; and at a small court held at Hartington aforesaid for the aforesaid manor on the fifth day of September in the abovesaid year the third proclamation was made, without any claim.

[goldie61]

Good grief. What a roller coaster.

I've seen lots of pieces of land passed on through manor courts - they're usually very straight forward.
This seems to be unnecessarily complicated. 

MAny thanks again for ploughing through it all.
You'll be pleased to hear I haven't found another one so complicated in the images I took at Chatsworth!