Difference between revisions of "C78 1771"

From Waalt
Line 39: Line 39:
 
| C79/225, no.  [http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C79no225/IMG_0286.htm]
 
| C79/225, no.  [http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C79no225/IMG_0286.htm]
 
|-
 
|-
 +
 +
 +
! 1771
 +
| 10 July
 +
| 11
 +
| Abraham Lea; Richard Lea; and Elizabeth Lea spinster legatees of Thomas Bromhale late of Spring Lane, Cheshire, esq, on behalf of themselves and other legatees who contribute to the suit v. Mary Wilbraham then an infant now 21 executrix of Thomas Bromhall and Samuel Rogers cousin and heir at law of said Thmas Bromhall
 +
|
 +
| C79/145, no.  [http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C79no145/IMG_0427.htm]
 +
|-
 +
  
  

Revision as of 16:07, 26 February 2015

Overall C78 page [1]

Major Contributor(s): Robert C. Palmer

Minor Contributors please initial relevant rows

Cal_Year Cal_Date Regnal_Year Parties Subject Matter Roll/Case_No.
1771 C79/, no. []
1771 9 Feb 11 Stephen Pitcher; John Hancock; Samuel Bartlett; Nicholas Tuff; and John Harbin the younger and on behalf of themselves and other owners and occupiers of lands in the parish of Whitechurch Canonicorum, the parish or chapelry of Marshwood, and the chapelries of Chidcock and Stanton St Gabriels, Dorset v. William Hawkins clerk and vicar of Whitechurch Canonicorum with the parish or chapelry of Marshwood and the chapelries of Chickcock and Stanton St Gabriels annexed C79/264, no. [2]
1771 4 July 11 William Newtonb; Nicholas Newton; and John Newton v. James Bennett; Mary Tryon; and William Tryon C79/225, no. [3]
1771 10 July 11 Abraham Lea; Richard Lea; and Elizabeth Lea spinster legatees of Thomas Bromhale late of Spring Lane, Cheshire, esq, on behalf of themselves and other legatees who contribute to the suit v. Mary Wilbraham then an infant now 21 executrix of Thomas Bromhall and Samuel Rogers cousin and heir at law of said Thmas Bromhall C79/145, no. [4]
1771 14 Dec 12 Thomas Newton esq the eldest son and heir at law of Thomas Newton his father and grandson and heir of at law of Rowland Newton and as such the cousin and only heir at law on the part of the father of John Newton esq lately deceased v. William Newton gentleman C79/148, no. [5]
1771 C79/, no. []