APPENDIX 1

Summary

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA

CIPM, xxii & xxiii

Escheatries consisting of two counties

In CIPM, xxii and xxiii, occasions were noted when writs addressed to the escheators of dual escheatries resulted in only a single inquisition. Editorial comment was as follows (as in CIPM, xxii, p. 115 regarding Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire): [The inquisition for Huntingdonshire ordered in the writ is not extant.].

In some cases, however, not previously noted, the writ endorsement does in fact specify whether the escheator returned one or two inquisitions (the word ‘inquisition’ is variously rendered in the singular or plural) and, where the endorsement can be used in this way (i.e. is not non-specific or non-existent), it has been found that where only one inquisition dealing with one county is the result of a writ addressed to an escheator of two counties, one inquisition only is indicated in the endorsement as having been returned to Chancery. In only one case, where one inquisition only is now extant, is it noted that two inquisitions were returned: CIPM, xxii, no. 653 (pp. 587–8), where the writ was addressed to the escheator of Cumberland and Westmorland. It should also be noted that, in a clutch of instances, only one inquisition is stated as having been returned to Chancery, but two, one from each county, are extant (CIPM, xxii, nos 489– 90, 538–9; CIPM, xxiii, nos. 72–3, 96–7).