WUDECOT v LANGFORD. PRS xiv. 14; RCR i. 126 (1193-5)
Cited Bailey, CLl ix, 202, n. 79, 206, n. 108, 208, n. 118.
Robert of Woodcote, a substantial landholder [R.W. Eyton,
Antiquities of Shropshire, vii (1858) 335; ix (1859), 11 sq., 17.]
seems to have been successfully sued in novel disseisin at the
Shropshire eyre of 11191 by one
Robert de Huntele or
Huntiland. Both of
them may have sought to hold of Eva de Langford, an heiress in her own
right. Some years later, seven of the recognitors could not remember
whom she had warranted.
Robert of Woodcote sought his exchange from Eva, apparently by
Warantia Carte, at the Shropshire eyre of 1193. Eva, no doubt advised
by her new second husband Walter of Wheatfield, brother to a royal
justice, had the case put to a jury, for which she paid a mark. [Pipe
Roll 1 ~i£hard 1, 112; cf. R~ ~ 1 Richard 1, 152, 254.1 The case
was adjourned to Westminster, where Walter, on his wife's behalf
"petit breve per quod implacitatur". If this means that he sought a
sight of the original writ, it suggests that Warantia Carte was not
yet a routine action. In the absence of a verdict, Eyton conjectured
that Woodcote won his case, Eyton, viii (1859), 101-8 etc. Certainly,
the Woodcotes were holding of Eva by 1208, CRR v. 270, 281.
By 1199 fresh proceedings were under way at Westminster, a
Recordari Facias obtained to question the original assize decision.
have so far been unable to disentangle the subsequent course of this
third case and its connection with the earlier dispute. The main
references noted, and used above, are as follows;- William Salt
Society iii. 501 (Stafford eyre); RCR ii. 239; CRR i. 197, 238, 461;
PK.1 i. 197, 513 0199-1201)
SOURCE:
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/19555/1/HumsWP-0116.pdf
