Alice (?)
F, d. 1255
Alice married Peter de Eyton II, son of Peter de Eyton. Alice's husband, Peter, died before 1240 in the Manor of Buttery, Shropshire, England, leaving her a widow. On 3 February 1249, she quit claims her dower rights to Buttery to Adam, Abbot of Shrewsbury, but she did still have her one third dower rights in her husband's estate; sometime in the next 3 years. She quitclaimed her dowery right to Buttery to Adam Abbot of Shrewsbury. Alice died in 1255 in Shropshire, England, at the Manor of Eyton soon after the death of her son, William.1
Family | Peter de Eyton II b. c 1163, d. b 1240 |
| Child |
|
Citations
- [S1016] Robert William Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, pages 32-33 - In 1255 he was deceased, his widow Matilda surviving him, but his son and heir, Peter, being an infant, probably under ten years of age. Hence the Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 says as follows.—" Peter de Eiton is Lord of Eiton and is in ward to Peter Peverel by gift of Ralph le Butiler (then Baron of Wem). And he (Peter de Eiton) holds the said Manor by service of one knight at Wemme, in time of war, for 40 days, at his own charges. And the Manor used to do suit to County and Hundred, but it has been withdrawn these ten years; and the said suit is worth 2s. yearly."
Matilda, widow of William de Eyton, remarried to Walter de Pedwardine and took with her in dower one-third of two parts of the estate of Eyton. The remaining part had never come to William de Eyton's hands, for it was held at the time of his death by his mother Alice, who survived him. Alice however died before 1256, and at the Assizes of January in that year a curious point in the Law of Dower had its solution. Walter de Pedwardine and Matilda his wife, having already one-third of two-thirds of two carucates in Eyton in Wydemore as Matilda's dower, sued Peter Peverel and Ralph de Kent for a third of that remaining third which had now lapsed to the general estate by death of Alice. The Plaintiffs asserted that William de Eyton had given dower to Matilda out of this remaining third. This the Defendants denied, saying that William had never been seized of the said third except in tenancy and during the period between his father Peter's death and the allotment of the said third as his mother's dower. The facts were not in dispute. They were, that Peter de Eyton died seized of the whole estate, that William his son and heir instantly afterwards gave one third to his mother Alice in dower, and had never been otherwise in seizin of such third;—obviously because his mother survived him. The question was one of law, viz. whether Walter de Pedwardine and Matilda could demand dower out of dower, i.e. take thirds in such part of William de Eyton's estate as had reverted since his death ? The Court decided in the negative, dismissed Peverel and Kent sine die, and pronounced the Plaintiffs in misericordid for a false claim.1.