person page - 1171

It has been suggested that the Jan 1728/29 burial of an is this Ann.
However, the entry does not say she was Joseph's wife (other burials on the same page give the husband's name).

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

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.