Acórdão em relação (transcription) condemning the defendant, not named, to relinquish to Pedro, minor, administrator of the entail of Beatriz Ribeiro and son of the plaintiff, not named, an entailed public debt instrument, which was seized to pay a debt, and, before the auction, was incorporated in the king's assets and donated by the king to the defendant as a reward for his services. This public debt instrument had been left by Beatriz Ribeiro to her brother, Baltasar Ribeiro, after his death it had passed to D. Maria de Gouveia, who had passed it to her daughter, Antónia Josefa de Sousa, mother of D. Maria Teresa de Ayala, Pedro's mother.

Acórdão em Relação from Desembargo that confirms the previous sentence from Provedor das Capelas, declaring that Manuel Cardoso, defendant, only should pay the income of the seized houses since the contested lawsuit.

Acórdão em Relação judging the second will of Luís de Mendonça Furtado as valid and both his brother, Nuno de Mendonça Furtado, plaintiff, and sister, D. Maria Josefa de Mendonça, defendant, as his successors, since their other brother, Jerónimo de Mendonça Furtado, committed the crime of lèse-majesté and was excluded from the succession. It defines how to divide the estate of Luís de Mendonça Furtado, seting apart the half of his available portion to annex to the entail of S. Simão de Azeitão and other bequests and then dividing the remaining assets between Nuno de Mendonça Furtado and D. Maria Josefa de Mendonça. It also defines the payment of some debts that Luís de Mendonça Furtado owed to his brother Jerónimo de Mendonça Furtado.

Acórdão em Relação from Desembargo that revokes a previous sentence, condemning the provedor and irmãos of Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Santarém, defendants, to relinquish to the author, Manuel Cardoso, a half of the farmstead of Gouveia, in the outskirts of Évora, belonging to the entail of André Dias and seized to pay a debt. It refers that the entailed properties can not be executed to pay the entails' owners and administrators debts.

Acórdão from Desembargo that partially revokes the previous sentence, condemning the defendant, António de Sousa Meneses, to relinquish the properties income only from the contested lawsuit until their return, because, before that, he did not owned the assets with ill will.

Acórdão from Desembargo that confirms the previous sentence from Desembargador Juiz Comissário, clarifying how the income that the defendants should pay and the improvements that the plaintiff should pay to them will be estimated.

Acórdão absolving the defendant from the payment of the past pensions.

Acórdão do Desembargo that revokes a previous sentence delivered from an unspecified judge, condemning the defendants, including Pedro Martins Neves, to relinquish to the plaintiff, not named, administrator, the assets belonging to the chapel of Padre João de Matos Pais, prior of Várzea, including the property of Ribeira, in Teixoso, which were improperly executed to pay the institutor's debts, because there were still free assets to be executed.

Acórdão from the Desembargo that partially confirms the previous sentence and partially revokes it, absolving the defendant, Domingos da Costa de Mesquita, from the payment of 40.000 réis and estimation of 1 conto and 80.000 réis of the entailed estate sold by his grandfather, due to the plaintiff's lack of evidence in the condemnatory sentence.

Acórdão do Desembargo that orders the fulfilment of a previous sentence from Desembargadores da Casa e Relação of Porto, declaring that the plaintiff should, firstly, relinquish the free assets of Padre João de Matos Pais to execute his debts and, then, the
entailed assets.

Composition deed between Fernando Mendes de Olivença, administrator of the chapel of Santo António, and the monastery of São Francisco de Olivença. Fernando Mendes claimed that his father left many debts, and that he couldn't pay for the pious obligations of the chapel for several years. During that period, the monastery appealed to the pope, requiring that part of the chapel's estates rents could be used in the works of construction of the new monastery. The pope conceeded their requests, ordering however that several masses should still be said in the chapel of the sake of the institutors and his relatives' souls. Through his attorneys, Fernando Mendes payed 100.00 reis to the monastery to settle the debts.

Court sentence condemning Tomé de Castro do Rio, defendant, to pay the amount (25 contos 964.632 réis) he owes to the entail of Luís de Castro do Rio, his father, to buy assets to entail and ordering the seizure of his own assets until the debt payment.

Court sentence judging the listed assets as entailed to the main chapel of the monastery of Capuchinhos of Loures, which belonged to Luís de Castro do Rio, the entail's institutor, to discharge the debt of 25 contos 964.632 réis of Tomé de Castro do Rio.

Court sentence pronounced by the judge of Resíduos of Braga concerning the litigation of Jorge de Melo e Lima, administrator of the 'morgadio' and chapel instituted by Pedro Marinho Falcão, against the possessors of the estates entailed to the 'morgadio', who did not pay their debts and therefore prevented the administrator of celebrating the masses for the soul of the institutor, thus harming his soul. By the present sentence, the administrator could compell the debtors to pay their debts.

Court sentence accepting the declarations made by D. Guiomar Correia and D. Filipa de Moura e Meneses and ordering them to pay what they owed to the priests of the monastery of Santíssima Trindade de Lisboa, according to what they had declared.

Court sentence judging the farmstead in Varatojo, which had been entailed to the chapel of Baltasar Fernandes and Florência Rodrigues de Faria, free of any obligation, since it had been seized and sold for debts, after their deaths. Its current owner, Manuel de Vasconcelos, was freed of charges. The chapel was administered by Luís Álvares da Fonseca Coutinha, heir of the institutors.

Court sentence by the licenciado Luís Martins de Sequeira, cidadão e juíz do cível em Lisboa, finishing a conflict started by the priests of the monastery of Santíssima Trindade of Lisboa against D. Guiomar Correia and D. Filipa de Moura e Meneses, related to a debt they owed to the chapel of the entail established by Álvaro Gonçalves de Moura.
Álvaro Gonçalves de Moura, son of D. Filipa and administrator of the entail of his grandfather, also called Álvaro Gonçalves de Moura, and D. Guiomar Correia, widow of the institutor, had made a contract with the priests of the convent of Santíssima Trindade to establish a chapel in their chapterhouse to serve as burial place of their grandfather and husband and of the successors of his entail. They promised to pay 100 000 réis for the construction of the chapel and for an obligation of a daily mass and the 20 annual masses of the entail. Álvaro Gonçalves de Moura, however, had died childless before paying what he owed for the establishment of the chapel. Thus, D. Guiomar Correia, as institutor of the chapel, and D. Filipa de Moura e Meneses, as mother and heir of her son, and administrator of his entail, were ordered to pay what they owed to the priests of the convent under penalty of losing the chapel, which they accepted. It is mentioned D. Filipa de Moura e Meneses was involved in a conflict over the succession of this entail with Rui de Moura Teles.
Contains declarations, contract and bond deed, motion and court sentence.

Court sentence condemning Manuel Cardoso, defendant, to relinquish to José Borges, plaintiff and administrator of the estate of António de Avelar, absent and administrator of the chapel of Inês Fernandes, some houses, in Lisboa, with their income since the undue occupation until their return, which he improperly seized to execute a debt of Domingos Gonçalves, father of António de Avelar. The plaintiff has to pay the repairs made by the defendent in the property. It is proved that Manuel Cardoso seized the houses during the administration of António de Avelar, who inherited the chapel from his mother, Margarida de Avelar, and is not his father's heir.

Court sentence judging the seizure of some houses, in Lisboa, belonging to the entail of Fernando Lopes, to execute a debt from Duarte Fernandes as void. It also condemns the heirs of António de Sousa and Domingos Gonçalves, defendants, to relinquish the houses, bought at auction by António de Sousa, and their income since the contested lawsuit until their return to Joana Maria Pimentel Soutomaior, tutor and administrator of her eldest son, D. Gaspar da Costa Soutomaior, administrator of the entail of Fernando Lopes.

Court sentence condemning the defendant, Domingos da Costa de Mesquita, to pay to the plaintiff, Francisco da Costa de Mesquita, 1 conto and 80.000 réis and 40.000 réis, corresponding to the entail's money that his grandfather, Domingos Nunes da Costa, spent and owed to the entail. This money should be invested in free properties to be entailed.

Court sentence condemning D. Doroteia Freire da Silva, appellee, to relinquish to D. Josefa de Castilho, appellant and administrator of the chapel of D. Isabel de Castilho, the houses sold at an auction (arrematadas) to pay some debts of the last administrator, António Teixeira Santa Cruz, with their income generated since the day D. Josefa de Castilho succeeded to her brother, knocking off 200.000 réis and their interest, from the first loan deed. António da Silva da Veiga, husband of D. Doroteia Freire da Silva, lent some money to António Teixeira da Cruz and bought the houses at auction to pay the debt.

Court sentence absolving the defendant, not named, from the requested by Cristóvão Pimenta, plaintiff, administrator and son of Luís Gonçalves da Sorte, first administrator, to relinquish him some vineyards allegedly belonging to the entail of Padre Bartolomeu Esteves. The vineyards were seized and bought at auction by the defendant to pay some debts of the institutor before the entail's institution, proving that there is no damage to the entail.

Court sentence condemning the defendant, António de Sousa Meneses, to relinquish the chapel's assets, bought at auction to Doutor Manuel da Mata Bigodes, who improperly seized them. The plaintiff, José de Freitas Trancoso, requested the properties return because they are entailed to the chapel of Isabel Fialho.

Court sentence condemning Damião Botelho da Silveira, defendant, to pay to Valentim da Costa Gentil, plaintiff, administrator of the chapel of Doutor Francisco Gentil, absent in India, and represented by his mother and attorney-in-fact, D. Inês Gentil, a deposit of 12.000 réis per year, corresponding to the income of some entailed houses, since the last acquittance until the present. The amount of 12.000 réis corresponds to a deposit offered by Estêvão Rodrigues to the plaintiff in a subrogation contract and only paid until he finds other free houses to subrogate. The defendant is in possession of the chapel's houses, but owes the income from 1641. Since the deposit does not change the entailed nature of the houses, they still belong to the chapel and the defendant has to pay the value in debt.

Court sentence condemning the defendants to relinquish to the plaintiffs, including Maria Teles, wife of the plaintiff and administrator of the entail of Maria Dias, the half of the vineyard of Vale do Freire, with the income since the contested lawsuit, which was improperly seized to execute a debt of Manuel Teles, husband of the institutor and first administrator. The plaintiff should return to the defendants 31.750 réis, corresponding to the price of the acquisition at auction and to the income from the lease of the farmstead of Casa Branca, also improperly settled.

Motion presented by Ambrósio Pessanha, owner of the farmstead (herdade) of Fortaleza, and D. Maria, widow of Jorge Pessanha, proving that Ambrósio Pessanha, son-in-law of Jorge Pessanha, neither D. Maria should not pay the debt of Álvaro Mendes to Manuel Fragoso, in which Jorge Pessanha standed surety for Álvaro Mendes, because they are not heirs of Jorge Pessanha. Besides, Ambrósio Pessanha defends that the farmstead of Fortaleza should not be seized because it was entailed by Ambrósio Pessanha, great-grandfather of Ambrósio Pessanha, appellant.

Royal sentence executing a citation order issued on behalf of the abbot and monks of the monastery of São Bento da Baía condemning Manuel Lopes, administrator of the chapel of São Pedro, founded by António Cordeiro, to restitute a land near Vila Velha's district that was unlawfully entailed by the institutor. The judicial dispute over this land lasted from 1656 to 1684, opposing the monastery, as plaintiff, against the institutor and the administrators of the entail.

Royal sentence regarding a liquidation order issued on behalf of the abbot and monks of the monastery of São Bento da Baía against Manuel Lopes, administrator of the chapel of São Pedro, founded by António Cordeiro, who was condemned to restitute a land that was unlawfully entailed by the institutor and give a compensation worth 413.300 réis to the monastery.

[Includes a scribe's note mentioning three articles of a certificate refering that the defendant should restitute the land that was unlawfully entailed and, as the judicial dispute lasted from 1654-06-10 until 1677-03-09, he was obliged to restitute 413.300 réis of to the monastery; also includes many inserted documents, such as sentences, dispatchs, donation deeds, acordãos, concerning the dispute over the land].

Sentence confirming that the houses in Lisboa which belonged to an unidentified defendant are entailed to the chapel established by João Rodrigues and that therefore they can't be used to pay the defendant's debts.

Sentence by which the provedor das Capelas refused to validate a composition made between António Lourenço de Vasconcelos, his wife D. Violante de Abreu Leitão, and the priests of the convent of S. Francisco of Lisboa, because he doesn't have the jurisdiction to confirm it.
Preceded by a summary by which it is explained that António Lourenço de Vasconcelos had been called to give notice of the payments in 1659, of which he was found to be in debt for 14 years. He and his wife, D. Violante de Abreu Leitão, had then agreed with the priests of the convent of S. Francisco of Lisboa to entail a farmstead in paço do Lumiar, Lisboa, to fulfill these charges, through an agreement deed issued in 1660-05-12. However this deed was impugnated since they lacked permission from the pope to make it.
Followed by an acordão em relação dated 1662-01-11, confirming this sentence and ordering the sequestration of the public debt instrument.