Roletus DUTOIT (ID #I5478)
(male)
- BIRTH: BEF 1425, of Chavannes-sur-Moudon
- DEATH: BEF 1511
Father: Nycodus DUTOIT (d. bef 1454)
Family 1
:
Agneta _____ (dates unknown)
- Antoine DUTOIT (d. aft 1488)
- +Guy (Guido, Guidano Detecto) DUTOIT (b. BEF 1465, d. BEF 1528)
- +Nicod DUTOIT (b. BEF 1470, d. BEF 1511)
Several records in the registers of Michel Frossard, notary at Moudon, identify the father of Guido and Nicoletus de Tecto as Vuillerme or Vuilleme, and detail some of the other family relationships. There is no indication of a direct relationship to any of the Dutoits at Vuarmarens, nor any explicit evidence of a relationship with the other lineage at Chavannes, involving Jacob Dutoit and his siblings.
Nevertheless, a dispute involving holders of the "Disme" called Dutoit, a feudal tax at Chavannes-sur-Moudon, was heard before the Cour de Justice of Chavannes 22 aug 1690, in which Jaques, Isaac, and Jacob Dutoit, sons of Abraham Dutoit (and his wife Pernon Veyre), arguing that they were the direct descendants of Jaques, Jean, and Rolet Duthey, parties to an agreement with Noble Humbert Cerjat dated 21 jul 1449 (signed by notary Jean Crepy), now asked for changes to the terms of the "disme", such that it would henceforth apply to additional crops, such as peas, beans, millet, and hemp, for the benefit of the holders of the "disme". While the other holders of the "disme" argued that the application of the "disme" to such crops had not been done nor even mentioned over the previous two centuries, an accommodation was made.
The record of the dispute is of interest, as it hints at documents held by the family for over two centuries, which, conceivably, might still exist:
Chavannes-sur-Moudon, registre du cour de justice, 1680-1697 (ACV BIL 264)
22 Aug 1690.
Sur la Conteste suscit�e par devant l'honnorable Justice de Chavasnes-sur-Moudon, par les honnorables Anthoyne Dutoict Lieutenant, et Egrege Jaques Crausaz Curial dudit Chavasnes et bourgeois de Moudon tant � leur propre que de leurs consors en la Receverie du Dixme dudit Chavasnes Acteurs d'une, Contre les honnorables Jaques, Isaac et Jacob Dutoit freres, fils de feu Abraham Dutoict aussi dudit Chavasnes R�es d'autre part; Ausquels lesdits Sieurs Acteurs demandoyent qu'ils eussent � leur laisser lever et parvenir � l'avenir le dixme du Chanvre et des toutes sortes de legumages qu'ils ont d'ensemenc�s et qu'ils ensemenceront � l'avenir sur leurs terres dependantes de ceste dixmerie de Chavasnes, comme pois, pesettes, faves, orge, lentilles, milliet, panis, et de tous autres menus bleds qu'ils ensemenceront � l'avenir, offrants de leur cost� d'en faire le mesme, afin d'estre distribu� � tous les compartionniers endite receverie, chacun selon la part et portion qui luy en comportera, ou qu'ils ayent � faire dhuement conster par droitz et tiltres autentiques, contraires � ceux que lesdits acteurs produisent, qu'ils en soyent exempts et affranchis entierement, contre la pronontiation rendue le 21e Juillet 1449 Sign�e Jean Crepy entre feu Humbert Cerjat et les feu honnorables Jaques, Jean et Rolet Duthey dudit Chavasnes produite, avec divers aquis faits de quelques particulliers de plusieurs fractions, jouxte lesquels droitz lesdites parties prient d'estre maintenus avec protestes de tous depens, d'autant qu'ils prossedent ce droit en fief et hommage soubs certain cense, lesdites R�es y ayant eu part s'en sont despouill�s en s'affranchissant de la faction et charge que doit faires celuy qui veut jouir du benefice, comme estant ledit devoir inseparable du benefice dudit Dixme.
A quoy lesdits R�es pour response disent que de temps Immemorial voire des pass�s deux cents ans, on n'a veu dixmer ni entendu dire qu'on ayt dixm� les legumages riere ledit Chavasnes, se recriants au possessoire plus que privilegi�, authoris� par les Loix, et que l'acte de pronontiation produit fait en leur faveur, puis qu'ils sont de nom et de Genealogie les vrays descendantz desdits Dutoitz Enonc�s dans ladite pronontiation, et que par ainsi etoyent qu'elle fait plustost en leur faveur plustost que celle desdits Acteurs, car si mesme ils se sont despouill�s de leur part au Dixme du froment, messel, seigle et avoine seulement, la dixmerie sus le reste des autres graines n'ayant justques icy est� Introduits, ils n'ont par ladite vendition assujetty leurs terres au dixmes qui n'a jamais est� accoustum� d'estre lev�e, comme croyantz leurs terres de temps Immemorial pour franches du Dixme de tout legumages sus repet� sans distinction, autrement leur portion n'auroit pas est� vendue sa valeur, offrants de faire leur faction dixmer, charier, haberger, et battre comme l'un d'eux, au cas qu'on leur fasce part des benefices qu'ils jouissent pour cela, et autres raisons avanc�es soustenants ester mal Interpell�s, concluans � liberation avec suitte de depens.
Parties estans comparues par devant Egrege Vertueux et Provide Gabriel Bize, Vidomne et bourgeois dudit Moudon et Chastelain de Chavasnes tenant la Cour dudit Chavasnes avec les Sieurs Jur�s neutre choisis pour juger de ceste conteste, avant que de passer au jugement sur les debatz (?) et process Instruict, les parties ayants est� exhort�es � gouster une pronontiation absolue qui leur pouroit estre faite par ladite Noble Justice comme bien Instruicte du fait en question, et par dequelles on pouroit prevenir les fascheuses suittes que ceste difficult� enfantera si elle est port�e plus loin, contre les devoirs de parentage et de voisinage qui sont des Relations fortes, avec autres touchantes refflections qui ont port� les parties � donner les mains � ceste saine proposition. Et pour marque d'une grande confiance elles ont reciproquement convenu que ce sera � l'absolue afin de faire une desongne achev�e, et affermir une bonne amiti�, et pour plus aysement venir � chef de cest ouvrage, apres avoir toutes lesdites parties est� entendues, en leurs raisons et allegations reciproques, on auroit prises separement pour resentir leurs sentiments et sur tout tascher de scavoir d'elles si en Reglant auxdits R�es une certaine quantit� de terres qu'il pouront semer en legumage, et jouir franc de dixme � lavorir en paix et de surplus s'ils en veulent semer au desla estre dismable, puisque lesdits Acteurs se plaignent de l'abus qu'on en fait justques icy, puis que lesdits R�es sont d'eschus totalement du droit et franchises dedite Dixmerie ou il s'appert qu'ils n'ont aucune part aux benefices, combien qu'ils en ayent jouy par un peur [pur] effect de complaisance qu'on appelle gratuitement, car des leur vendition ils ont cesse de rendre le service dub � cause dedite receverie et des ladite vendition en ont entirement est� exempt�s, et leur acheteur tenu de le faire � leur place, tout ce qui peut faire en leur faveur, est que possible par la vendition de leurdit part n'aura est� faite de sa juste valleur et n'aura est� concider�e que sur le benefice qui se fait avec les autres portionniers, soubs l'esperance que le droit sur le legumage leur resteroit, ce qui ne peut contre l'acte dedicte vendition, qui est peur [pur] et simple, qui n'a d'autre explication sinon la part au dixme de Chavasnes nulment (?) qu'est tout comprendre. Mais pour bien de paix et en Vue d'establir un bon Reglement � l'avenir, lesdits Acteurs one par cestes ced�, permis et conced� auxdites R�es et � leurs successeurs et representans � toute perpetuit�, le droit et pouvoir de jouir la sem�e d'une coppe mesme de Moudon en legumages, orges, pois, feves, pesettes, lentilees, panis, milliet ou autres menus bleds s'ils en sement, � Chacun d'eux et les leurs representans leurdit pere, � leur choix quelle graine qu'il leur plaira des sus specifi�es, outre encor � chacun d'eux la sem�e d'un quarteron de Chanvre, qu'est pour lesditz trois freres entr'eux et leurs descendants, pour toutes Choses quinze quarterons de franc de Dixme par chasque ann�e, touts fois s'ils sement du surplus il sera dismable comme les autres graines � deffaut de ne pouvoir convenir par trait� autrement � l'advenir, ce qui restera au droit et pouvoir desdits Acteurs et compartionniers, bien entendu que les enfans desdites R�es venants en aage (hors de faire aquis de quelques portions audit Dixme) ne pouront jouir de ce benefice que entr'eux tous assavoir representans leurdit pere seulement sans possible vouloir un jour avoir chacun estre (?) de franc. Estant aussi expressement design� que le tout soit sans alterer ni viscier aux droits des Seigneurs qui ont part au grand Disme, et sans que les autres pretendants avoir part audit Dixme en puissent tirer consequence au prejudice desdits Acteurs ni des leurs, et sans qu'il soit faite Consideration de la procedure � ce sujet demen�e, ce qu'estant represent� aux parties, elles ont accept� reciproquement ceste proprosition avec remerciemens et quant aux depens convenus qu'ils fussent compens�s, pour les Injures si aucune il y en � elles ont est� enlev�es, sans qu'elles puissent prejudicier � l'honneur reciproque des parties, ayant lesdites parties promis de bonne foy et reciproque obligation de leurs biens, chacun en ce qui les concerne et leurs consors d'agreer tout le contenu des presentes et de les tenir pour stable � toutes perpetuit� sans y contrevenir ni aux contrevenantz consentir � peyne de tous damps. Dat� et pass� Judicialement audit Moudon dans la maison seigneuriale dudit Chavasnes, soubs le sceau d'Egrege etprovide Gabriel Bize Vidomne et bourgeois dudit Moudon, et Chastelain dudit Chavasnes, avec la signature du Curial Substitu� dudit lieu, le vingtdeuxiesme jour du mois d'Aoust mille six cents quatrevingt et dix 1690. - [Signed] Is. DuToict
Now, the brothers who appeared in 1690 must be direct descendants of the man sometimes called "Vuilleme" Dutoit in the records of the notaries, and, from the dates of Guido and his brother, this man, whatever his name may have been, must have been alive when the agreement was signed in 1449. Unless the parties of 1449 were acting on behalf of other relatives not identified in the proceedings of 1690, Vuilleme would be the son of one of these three. Moreover, their names match those of three of the four (?) brothers Jacob, Rolet, Jean, and (possibly) Pierre who appear in several other records from the mid-15th Century. Thus, the earliest known document concerning the "disme" at Chavannes seems to tie all of the Dutoit families together, under a common ancestor who lived at the beginning of the 15th Century. The agreement in question does not seem to be mentioned in the inventories of the archives of Chavannes or Moudon posted on the internet site of the Archives Cantonales Vaudoises. It may, however, be part of a bundle or dossier that was not listed in detail. It would be helpful to our understanding of the relationships of the Dutoit and other families of Chavannes it this document could be located. However, it is not at all certain that the d�me called Dutoit actually originated in 1449. It is entirely possible that it had already existed well before that date, and the transaction of 1449 was simply a change in the ownership of the rights to collect the d�me.
A reconnaissance of 1592 (ACV Fn 347 fol. 263, and others in the same volume) refers back to a previous reconnaissance recorded by Eg. Fran�ois Colon in which various properties had been divided as follows:
- 1/2 to Pierre and Jehan Duthey, brothers, sons of the late Nicod Duthey;
- 1/2 to Rolet, Antoine, and Jehan Duthey, brothers, sons of the late Guy Duthey.
This division suggests that "Vuilleme" had only two sons, and that his son Nicod had only the two sons Pierre and Jehan, and that his other son Guy had three sons, Rolet, Antoine, and Jehan.
The likely solution to this puzzle is found in the terriers of Rue (AEF Grosses de Rue, especially numbers 81 and 120), in which the father of Guido de Tecto is clearly named as Roletus, rather than Vuilliermus. If the latter name is an error (and there seem to be no other occurrences of the name Vuilliermus in this family in the 15th and 16th Centuries), then Roletus father of Guido would have to be the same Roletus who had brothers Jacobus, Johannes, and possibly Petrus. The terriers seem consistent and authoritative, so we now show the father of Guido de Tecto as Roletus rather than Vuilliermus.
The citations for "Roletus" include the following: He is mentioned in 1450 in a document of Jean Saly, notary at Moudon (28 feb 1450, a debt is owed by Perrinus Roppaz de Palie and his nephew Mermetus son of Johannes Fabrez to Jacobus de Tecto and Roletus de Tecto his brother, who is also acting as guardian (tutor) of the children of the late Johannes de laz Cort de Chavanes—there is as yet no explanation of how Roletus became their guardian, but one possibility is that his wife was a sister or other close relative of Johannes de laz Cort), and again in 1453 with his son Antoine. It is possible that Antoine had not reached the age of majority at that point; the transaction involved renting some cows. The last probable mention, in the same records, was in 1461. His son Anthonius is the subject of a reconnaissance dated 31 jan 1488 (AEF Grosses Rue 89, fol. 198), but nothing further has been found.
Rolet "De Tecto" of Chavannes is also mentioned in documents of this notary as the guardian of the children of the late Jean De Laz Cort (=Delacour, or the Latin version, de Curia) 28 feb 1450, as a creditor along with Rolet's brother Jacobus De Tecto, regarding a debt of Perrinus Roppaz and his nephew Mermetus son of Jean Fabrez. Since one of the children of that late Jean De Laz Cort was Agnes, widow of the late Petrus son of Johannes De Tecto (22 jan 1452, the same notary), it seems very probable that Roletus, Jacobus, and the late Petrus were all close relatives of Johannes — most likely Johannes was the brother of Roletus and Jacobus. Moreover, a reconnaissance dated 15 jun 1492 (AEF Grosses Rue 89, fol. 268) mentions two daughters of the late Johannes de Curia (=Jean de laz Cort): Francesia was the wife of a Nycodus de Tecto, and her sister Agnes was the widow of Nycodus Excofferii (or Escoffier). It is very tempting to think that Agnes had first married Petrus son of Johannes de Tecto, and sometime later, after 1452, remarried to Nycodus Escoffier (possibly the notary of the same name, active as early as 1449). Pending further research, we accept this solution.
The d�me mentioned above seems to have a long history that is still not completely understood. One of the clearer documents concerning it is the reconnaissance of 15 jun 1492 mentioned above (AEF Grosses Rue 89, fol. 268), which also lists the owners of the same d�me in the past, as they had been recorded in a terrier compiled by Petrus de Calcibus (or a French version of his name, de Chaucy). The date of this prior reconnaissance has not been discovered. The notary could be the same one listed in the inventories of the ACV as Petrus Deschaux, commissaire for terriers Fn 23 and 26, dating from 1457, and Fn 25 and 31, from 1456. AEF Grosses Rue 89 also mentions previous reconnaissances recorded by Andreas de Solerio, who was the commissaire for the terrier ACV Fn 27 (1459). The reconnaissance of 15 jun 1492 gives the following information:
- The current reconnaissants for the d�me are (1) Claudius de Tecto causam habens a Francesia uxorem Nycodi de Tecto filiaque Johannis de Curia, et (2) Agnes relicta Nycodi Excofferii, (3) Francesia filia Petri de Costelz, (4) Petrus filius Jacobi de Tecto, (5) Guido de Tecto pro Humberto Cerjacti, (6) Petri Rapy pro Guilliermo Rapy, et (7) Petrus filius Nycodi Verylz pro Roleto filio Nycodi Veyrlz de Chavanes.
- They agree that they will: Se tenere etc. a prefatis dominis fratribus (Nobiles Anthonius Championis cancellarius Sabaudie et Jacobus Championis fratribus dominis de Romanens et de Billens) et suis predictis, de et sub homagio et feudo legio per ipsos confitentes dictis dominis et suis comparcionaris debito... de bonis que fuerunt Jacobi de Tecto filii Nycodi de Tecto, Guilliermi Rapy, Roleti filii Nycodi Verilz, Francesia uxor Nycodi de Tecto filiaque Johannis de Curia, Agnetis eius sororis uxorisque Nycodi Excofferii, et Humberti Cerjacti de Cabanis supra Meldunum per ipsos recognitis predecessores prefatorum dominorum in manibus Petri de Calcibus notarii. (This passage clarifies some relationships. In other reconnaissances in Grosses Rue 89, Agnes widow of Nycodus Escofferii owns property jointly with her nephew Claudius de Tecto. Claudius was apparently the son and heir of Francesia, sister of Agnes, by her husband Nycodus de Tecto. Note that Jacobus de Tecto, then still living, was the son of the late Nycodus, while Francesia de Curia was the wife of the still living Nycodus de Tecto, a different person.)
- The fief is described as follows: Receveriam medietatis decime dictorum confitentium nuncupate douz Teilz ville et territorii de Chavanes (the right to collect half of the d�me of the said reconnaissants called Dutoit in the village and territory of Chavannes) que decima partitur et levatur et percipi solita est (which is shared and assessed and has customarily been collected) cum dicto Guidone de Texto causam habente a Nobilibus Humberto et Guidone Cerjacti liberis Rodulphi et Henrici Cerjacti de Melduno (that is, the successors of the parties named in the reconnaissance recorded by Petrus de Calcibus hold the right to half of the d�me, while Guido de Tecto, having a claim on Humbertus and Guido Cerjat, successors of Rodulphus and Henricus Cerjat, holds the right to the other half of the d�me) cum eiusdem medietatis predicte juribus pertinentis et emolumentis universis (and with the said half interest, all the associated rights, appurtenances, and emoluments), sub annuo censu medietatis duorum solidarum et novem denarii Lausanne bonorum census (cense is half of 2 sols 9 deniers) pour louz Ressat (i.e., for the remainder ?) dictis comparcionariis et suis predictis communiter debitorum, in quolibet festo Nativitatis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi per dictos confitentes et suos predictos sub homagio et feudo ligio prefatis dominis... Et pro medietate quinque solidos bonorum Lausanne prefatis dominis et suis predictis, alias medietate Nobilibus de Prelz compartionaris prefatorum dominorum ad mutationem domini et vassali... (It appears from this passage that the d�me called Dutoit, or half of it, was originally the property of the Cerjat family, but that Guido de Tecto now had a claim on that half, and that the other half of the d�me had been owned by at least 6 families when the previous reconnaissance was made by Petrus de Calcibus or de Chaucy, probably in the 1450's. Exactly how to understand the division remains to be worked out. It may be that half of the original d�me was now split between Guido, who got it from the Cerjat family, and the descendants of the other local families, while the second half of the original d�me was still held by the de Prez family.)
__
|
__|
| |
| |__
|
_Nycodus DUTOIT _____|
| (.... - 1454) |
| | __
| | |
| |__|
| |
| |__
|
|
|--Roletus DUTOIT
| (1425 - 1511)
| __
| |
| __|
| | |
| | |__
| |
|_____________________|
|
| __
| |
|__|
|
|__
Return to Index
