Individual results

Having recited that during Easter term, 1666 Charles Adderley (knight), Sir Richard Hopkins (knight) [lawyer], Robert Beake and William Jeliff [clothier], complainants, exhibited a bill in Chancery against William Jesson (esq.), Elizabeth Jesson and Thomas Jesson [clothier], defendants, setting forth that William Jesson [dyer] the defendants' grandfather by his will (23 Oct 1650) left the aforesaid grandchildren Thomas and Elizabeth £100 at age fifteen and as much to his granddaughter Mary Catesby at fourteen, adding that any further child of his daughter Catesby should benefit similarly; that Mrs. Catesby had produced a son Thomas, who was still alive; that the grandfather's namesake [lawyer-]son by his will (2 Mar 1661) left his wife land at Onley, Northamptonshire [recte Warwickshire] for forty years, paying Jane Mosse a £140 annuity, and left the land thereafter to his executrix and overseers for another eight years, then to the defendant William Jesson; that William Jesson the father gave the defendant Elizabeth Jesson £500 to be paid out of those eight years' profits at age 21 or earlier marriage, whereas the rest of the octennium's profits would discharge other legacies; that William Jesson the father gave his daughter Elizabeth another £2,000 at 21 or earlier marriage so that she might release to William Jesson the son (or their brother Thomas if he survive William) her title to land at "Shotsbury" [Stottisbury?], Northamptonshire called Townfield, as should her husband if she marry under age; that William Jesson the father appointed that neither the £300 nor the £2,000 should be paid until such release should have been made and that Elizabeth should not enjoy profits while a minor, instead receiving £60 annually until fourteen, thence £800 per annum until adult, paid out of her father's personalty; that William Jesson the father left his Stoke, Coventry land (Dukes Close, Squire Close, Hill Field and Masons Close) to his wife until the daughter Elizabeth was 21 unless she married earlier, whereupon, the "Shotsbury" land having been released, the daughter should receive the Stoke estate provided that, within one year of her attaining her majority or earlier nuptials, William Jesson the son should pay her £500 and the land pass to him; that William Jesson the father left Mary Wood 40/- per annum and made his wife Frances his sole executor (Robert Beake and William Jeliff were named overseers) who, maintaining the children, should receive the rents and therewith buy land for William the son, whereas Elizabeth and Thomas would share equally his residuary estate; that, by a codicil, William Jesson the father stipulated that, if the eight years' profits from the Onley land prove insufficient to pay his debts, his executrix and overseers should hold it for another two years; that, after William Jesson the father's death, Sir Charles Adderley married Frances Jesson, who received the profits - as did the knight after the marriage - and paid out money in execution of William Jesson the father's will, but that debts on both the grandfather's and the father's estates became desperate which were supposed to fund Elizabeth's moneys and the £100 legacies; that William Jesson the son had administered his forebears' goods which had been left unadministered; that it had been agreed that Richard Hopkins, R. Beake and W. Jeliff should sue in William Jesson the son's name for recovery of debts and give discharge during the eight (plus two) years and receive rents from the Stoke and Coventry property until the father's estate should be divided, and should pay debts thereout, ensure that Elizabeth received her £80 annuity until the £3,500 be paid to her and discharge the 40/- life annuity to Mary Wood; that William Jesson the son should not receive or release any debts due on his forebears' estates without Hopkins et al's leave, but should be paid costs and not be chargeable with any loss; that it was also agreed that all should be agreeably divided between Charles Adderley and Elizabeth and Thomas Jesson; that it was agreed that Elizabeth had received her inheritance, and that C. Adderley should be freed from any claim via William Jesson the father or the now late Dame Frances Adderley out of the grandfather or father William Jessons' estates except anything which either Adderley had not received but which he was now ready to pay; that they had agreed to seek a Chancery decree to confirm the arrangements, paying its expenses out of William Jesson the father's estate; that they had agreed that C. Adderley should pay any moneys over to William Jesson the son; that a subpoena for that purpose has been granted, under which the defendants have recognised that their forebears' wills' terms and the complainants are indemnified; hence the case was heard in court on 3 Jul [1666] and it was stated that C. Adderley should account before Sir Walter Littleton (knight), master of the court, for his moneys received; that the master made his request on 20 Oct 1666, which ascertained that C. Adderley had received £2,345/2/6 out of the realty and £5,222/6/1 from personalty, and that he had paid William Jesson the son £2,194/7/8 (from the realty) and from the personal estate £5,183/14/7, so still has £157/14/3 and £38/11/6 respectively, which he should pay to the trustees named in the order on behalf of the other plaintiffs: therefore the report was confirmed on 22 Nov 1666.