Ann Kirk

ID# 11701, b. about 1692
Ann Kirk was also recorded as Anna.
From 20 October 1713, her married name was Dearnelly.
From 20 October 1713, her married name was Dearnley.
From 20 October 1713, her married name was Dearnelley.
From 20 October 1713, her married name was Dearnaley.
Birth:
Ann Kirk was born about 1692 at Glossop, Derbyshire.


Marriage:
Ann Kirk married Joseph Dearnelley on 20 October 1713 at Stockport, Cheshire,
Joseph Dearnelly & Anne Kirk of Glossop parish.
(it is not clear whether one or both were from Glossop.)

Children of Ann Kirk and Joseph Dearnelley

Sarah Dernilly

ID# 11702, b. about 1725
Sarah Dernilly was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
From 10 January 1746, her married name was Gee.

Note:

Could this be Sara the daughter of John D & Hannah of Glossop?
see Sara Dearneley.


Birth:
Sarah Dernilly was born about 1725 at Peak Forest, Derbyshire.


Marriage:
Sarah Dernilly married Benjamin Gee on 10 January 1746 at Peak Forest, Derbyshire.

Benjamin Gee

ID# 11703, b. about 1725
Birth:
Benjamin Gee was born about 1725.


Marriage:
Benjamin Gee married Sarah Dernilly on 10 January 1746 at Peak Forest, Derbyshire.

Sarah Dernley

ID# 11704, b. about 1714
Sarah Dernley was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
From 15 May 1735, her married name was Sharp.
Birth:
Sarah Dernley was born about 1714.


Marriage:
Sarah Dernley married Robert Sharp on 15 May 1735 at Welford-On-Avon, Gloucestershire.

Robert Sharp

ID# 11705, b. about 1714
Robert Sharp was also recorded as Rob. Sharp.
Birth:
Robert Sharp was born about 1714.


Marriage:
Robert Sharp married Sarah Dernley on 15 May 1735 at Welford-On-Avon, Gloucestershire.

Sarah Dearneley

ID# 11706, b. May 1655
Sarah Dearneley was also recorded as Sara Dernely.
She was also recorded as Sarah Dearnally.
She was also recorded as Sarah Dernely.
She was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
From 15 February 1681, her married name was Creswick.
From 15 February 1681, her married name was Dreswick.

Note:

Reports of cases adjudged in the Court of King's Bench, since the Time of Lord Mansfield's Coming to preside in it.
by Sir James Burrows
Volume the Fifth

Easter Term 1770 10 Geo. 3. B.R
p.2609
Denn, on the Demise of William Creswick, versus           Monday 14 May 1770 {in right margin}
Joseph Hobson and Seven Others.                

EJECTMENT for Messuages and Lands in Wadsley or Wadsley Hoxley in the Parish of Ecclesfield in Yorkshire.

The Cause was tried at the last Assizes at Winchester, before Mr. Justice Gould.

The Lessor of the Plaintiff claimed as Grandson and Heir Male of William Creswick, by Sarah his Wife, formerly Dearnally.

William Creswick, his Grandfather, on 27th January 1730 1, by Deed of Feoffment, in Consideration of his intended Marriage with Sarah Dearnally, and 150l. Marriage-Portion, conveyed the Premisses to John Dearnally (Father of Sarah) and Thomas Creswick, and the Survivor of them and his Heirs; Upon Trust, as to Part, That they should stand seised, from the Marriage, To the Use of the said William Creswick and Sarah, for their Lives and the Life of the Survivor, in Part of her Jointure and Dower; Remainder, to the Use of the " Heirs of the said William Creswick on the "Body of the said Sarah lawfully begotten or to be begotten; The Male to be preferred before the Female, and the Elder before the Younger."

p.2610
The Residue of the Premisses were limited to the same Uses, except the Use to Sarah for Life.

There was Issue of the Marriage, two Sons—
1st. William Creswick, (the }   { 2d. John Creswick; who died,
Eldest;) who died in 1750, }   { leaving Issue two Sons,
leaving Issue }   { viz, John Creswick his Eldest,
Mary; who died, leaving }   { who died without Issue,
Issue William Froggatt, }   { And William Creswick his
One of the Defendants. }   { second, the Lessor of the
    { Plaintiff.


After a long Examination, the Identity of the Premisses was sufficiently ascertained.

The Lessor of the Plaintiff claimed as Heir Male, under this Settlement.

On the Part of the Defendants, It was first insisted, either that old William, the Settler of the Estate, took a FEE-SIMPLE under the Remainder; and so the Defendant William Froggatt was his Heir at Law, as being the Son and Heir of Mary, the only Issue of William, the Eldest Son of the Marriage; Or, 2dly. that He was intitled as ISSUE IN TAIL general, under the Settlement.

But Mr. Justice Gould thought, the Lessor of the Plaintiff was intitled, as Heir in TAIL MALE, to the Lands indorsed on the Postea; (It being admitted "that he was barred as to the Rest, by a Fine and Nonclaim.")

A Verdict was found for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Mansfield, on behalf of the Desendants, moved for a New Trial.

The Question was, "Whether this Limitation was in "Tail Male; or Whether it was either a Limitation in "Tail general, or else a void Limitation, for its Uncertainty, so that Mary, the Daughter of the Eldest Son of old William, might claim as Heir at Law to Old Willam the Settler of the Estate." In either of the two latter Cases, the Claim of the Lessor of the Plaintiff, as Heir in Tail Male, would be at an End.

Mr. Mansfield endeavoured to satisfy the Court, that there was Nothing to hinder the Descent to the Heir at Law, though claiming through a Female. The Limitation is to all the Heirs of the Body &c And the Words "the Male to be preserred before the Female, and the Elder before the Younger," were mere Words of Form, he said, and operate Nothing; and may be reserred to the immediate Children of the Marriage, to shew how they should take. But

Lord Mansfield answered him, that if the Words have any meaning, they describe an Estate in Tail Male: And it is not to be supposed that they were inserted without any Meaning at all.

The other three Judges, (Mr. Justice Aston, Mr. Justice Willes, and Mr. Justice Blackstone) concurring clearly with his Lordship, it became unnecessary to hear Mr. Wallace, who was ready to shew Cause, on behalf of the Lessor of the Plaintiff, against Mr. Mansfield's Rule.

The whole Court agreed with Mr. Justice Gould, " that it was an Estate in Tail Male."

               Rule Discharged.

note: Tail Male - the limitation of the succession of property or title to male descendants.

1 This date is confusing - the Sarah Dearneley and William Creswick marriage was 15 Feb 1681.


Birth:
Sarah Dearneley was born in May 1655 at Glossop, Derbyshire.


Sarah Dearneley was the daughter of John Dearnely and Mary (?)

Baptism:
Sarah Dearneley was baptised on 16 June 1655 at Glossop, Derbyshire.


Residence:
in 1681 Sarah Dearneley lived at Mottram, Cheshire.


Marriage:
Sarah Dearneley married William Creswick on 15 February 1681 at All Saints Church, Glossop, Derbyshire,
shown as 1680/81.

Children of Sarah Dearneley and William Creswick

Mary (?)

ID# 11708, b. about 1627, d. November 1689
From about 1652, her married name was Dernely.
From about 1652, her married name was Dearneley.
Birth:
Mary (?) was born about 1627.


Marriage:
Mary (?) married John Dearnely, son of William Dearneley (IV) and Marie Redditch, about 1652.


Death:
Mary (?) died in November 1689 at Derbyshire.


Burial:
Mary (?) was buried on 29 November 1689 at All Saints, Glossop, Derbyshire,
Mary Dernely of Padfield, spouse: John sen.

Children of Mary (?) and John Dearnely

Sarah Dernely

ID# 11709, b. 21 April 1742
Sarah Dernely was also recorded as Sarah Dornely.
She was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
Birth:
Sarah Dernely was born in 1742 at Glossop, Derbyshire.


Baptism:
Sarah Dernely was baptised on 21 April 1742 at Parish Church, Glossop, Derbyshire.


Sarah Dernely was the daughter of Mary Dernely.

Mary Dernely

ID# 11710, b. about 1714
Mary Dernely was also recorded as Mary Dornely.
She was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
Birth:
Mary Dernely was born about 1714.


Residence:
in 1742 Mary Dernely lived at Glossop, Derbyshire.

Child of Mary Dernely