dates on title deeds document

ifconfig

I've got this entry from a list of transcribed title deed documents for the County of Louth.

https://postimg.org/image/6t0ptysih/

A possible relative is listed on this.
One of the issues I have with the deed abstract is that the deed is stated to be 99yrs commencing 1726, yet the deed is indexed as 1716.
This is quite significant for ruling this relative in or out.
Is there any logical reason why a deed transfer might be made and the term of the lease would be set forward by 10yrs hence ?

I guess what I am hoping is that this was a typo (or that this was a transfer of an existing deed made in 1716 but that the witnessing, etc happened in 1726).
Can anyone throw any light on this, based on understanding of land and deed norms ?
I am guessing someone in the registry of deeds in Henrietta street might be able to give a qualified opinion...

-ifc

pinkypinky

I'm stumped.

Did you check the registry of deeds index site to see if there's a second version of the details on it?

ifconfig

Interestingly under the surname I find evidence for the other putative relative (with roles denoted WD) in same townland in Louth.
I have a very interesting headstone inscription for that individual who died in 1768. The deed date is 1745.
Not sure how to read these entries.
It looks like a 1745 deed with no earlier entries.
This Gallstown/Gawstown/Ballygowan is very much the same townland as mentioned in the attached deed (query 1716 versus 1726).

http://irishdeedsindex.net/mem.php?memorial=75459

My hope would be that the earlier deed entry which I attached refers to a new agreement being drawn up in 1726 to transfer title from an early deed made in 1716.
My putative relative is just listed as a witness on the earlier document and the "WD" on this later one from the useful link you just sent me looks like his successor also acted as a witness on this later deed. My hunch is he had not title on these lands but was involved in farming them and was considered an appropriate "gentleman" for purposes of witnessing the deed.

Peregrinus

ifconfig wrote: »

I've got this entry from a list of transcribed title deed documents for the County of Louth.

https://postimg.org/image/6t0ptysih/

A possible relative is listed on this.
One of the issues I have with the deed abstract is that the deed is stated to be 99yrs commencing 1726, yet the deed is indexed as 1716.
This is quite significant for ruling this relative in or out.
Is there any logical reason why a deed transfer might be made and the term of the lease would be set forward by 10yrs hence ?

Yes, there is.

Broughton could have been already in occupation of the lands under a lease due to expire in 1726. That could have been a previous 99-year lease, granted in 1627, or it could have been a lease for some other long term. The point is, it was due to expire in 1726.

A long lease is a reasonably valuable asset, because it give you security of tenure at a fixed rent and, often, a tenant can assign his rights under the lease to someone else in return for payment (i.e. he can sell it). But in the final years of the lease its value falls off sharply, because the tenant doesn't know whether he will be able to renew the lease when it expires or, if he can, at what rent. Where the expiry of the lease is within ten years, what you have is an interest which is rapidly declining in value.

This is bad for the tenant; it's also not great for the landlord, because his land is now occupied by a tenant with an uncertain or no long-term interest. So he has less incentive to, e.g., maintain walls, fences and barns, take timber only at a renewable rate, avoid soil exhaustion or overgrazing, etc, etc.

So, it wouldn't be uncommon for the tenant and the landlord to renew the lease for a further 99 years in advance, possibly at an increased rent or in return for a lump sum payment or both. That way, the tenant gets a 109-year interest in the land, which is a much more valuable and stable asset, and the landlord gets a tenant with a long-term interest in maintaining the productivity of the land..

So that could be what's happening here. It's expressed as the grant of a new lease and, technically, it is, but in substance it could have been the renewal, in advance of the time, of an existing lease. I'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, but such a thing wouldn't have been unusual.

Thomas from Presence

Hey ifconfig - I have people in and around Clintonrath at that time - can I ask where you found that deed abstract?

tabbey

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, there is.

Broughton could have been already in occupation of the lands under a lease due to expire in 1726. That could have been a previous 99-year lease, granted in 1627, or it could have been a lease for some other long term. The point is, it was due to expire in 1726.

A long lease is a reasonably valuable asset, because it give you security of tenure at a fixed rent and, often, a tenant can assign his rights under the lease to someone else in return for payment (i.e. he can sell it). But in the final years of the lease its value falls off sharply, because the tenant doesn't know whether he will be able to renew the lease when it expires or, if he can, at what rent. Where the expiry of the lease is within ten years, what you have is an interest which is rapidly declining in value.

This is bad for the tenant; it's also not great for the landlord, because his land is now occupied by a tenant with an uncertain or no long-term interest. So he has less incentive to, e.g., maintain walls, fences and barns, take timber only at a renewable rate, avoid soil exhaustion or overgrazing, etc, etc.

So, it wouldn't be uncommon for the tenant and the landlord to renew the lease for a further 99 years in advance, possibly at an increased rent or in return for a lump sum payment or both. That way, the tenant gets a 109-year interest in the land, which is a much more valuable and stable asset, and the landlord gets a tenant with a long-term interest in maintaining the productivity of the land..

So that could be what's happening here. It's expressed as the grant of a new lease and, technically, it is, but in substance it could have been the renewal, in advance of the time, of an existing lease. I'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, but such a thing wouldn't have been unusual.

In theory at least, anyone with a lease for one year or more, had a legal right to have it renewed each year.
The problem was that the rent could be raised, and also most tenants would not have the resources to vindicate their rights.

As for the terms in this op's case, it is just a matter of checking the transcript in the Registry of Deeds, and if it is still a mystery, buy a scanned copy, which I think is E20.
An index, or a transcript of an index, is no substitute for the primary source

ifconfig

Via JSTOR in public library.
Louth historical journal

I sent a more detailed PM

Thomas from Presence wrote: »

Hey ifconfig - I have people in and around Clintonrath at that time - can I ask where you found that deed abstract?

ifconfig

Via JSTOR in public library.
Louth historical journal

I sent a more detailed PM

Thomas from Presence wrote: »

Hey ifconfig - I have people in and around Clintonrath at that time - can I ask where you found that deed abstract?

pedroeibar1

tabbey wrote: »

In theory at least, anyone with a lease for one year or more, had a legal right to have it renewed each year.
The problem was that the rent could be raised, and also most tenants would not have the resources to vindicate their rights.

Yes but...... It really depends on the year, the region, the size of the lease and the landlord. Many of the smaller tenants never had a lease. Reading the (next century) Devon report comments in the areas I've researched leases were often the exception. The era is important and the first half of the 1700's -that of the OP -is when big changes were happening. After the Restoration long leases (subsequently called Head Leases) often were granted at a fixed rent to “chief tenants”, who often were the former proprietors e.g. Sir William Petty who owned much of Kerry granted such leases to a branch of the O’Sullivan Beare family; Lord Cork granted a head lease to the O’Connells, as did Petty. The problem with those leases was two-fold for the landowner- it did not permit regular rent increases to take account of inflation but more importantly it transferred considerable local power to these chief tenants. By the mid 1700's a reversal of this policy began on the more progressive estates and there was a switch to ‘direct dealing’ with the smaller tenant farmers. As for going to law on leases it was a refular occurence and I have a memory of reading that Daniel O'Connell had a clause in the leases he issued to the effect that his tenants were forbidden from going to law before consulting/mediating with him first.

The Moores of the OP were probably the same family as the ones mentioned in the Tudor fiants here so the foregoing probably is not relevant to the OP but it is worth remembering when looking at landholdings in that era. (I'd go with Peregrinus' comment.)