Royal sentence, on behalf of D. Henrique, judging a process between Álvaro Lucas, substituted by Rodrigo Lucas, plaintiff, against António Quaresma, defendant, on the administration of the entail instituted by João de Pontes. The Santa Casa da Misericórdia of Benavente and the municipality of Benavente were opponents.
The sentence confirms an earlier one, handed down by the corregedor da comarca and dated 1577-05-13, in which it recognizes that, according to the institution, the administration was the responsibility of the municipality of Benavente.

Court sentence absolving Gaspar de Lemos, defendant, replacing his father, Gaspar da Mota, from the request of Baltasar de Lemos, plaintiff, replaced by his son, António de Lemos, to relinquish to him the entail of João de Lemos, because he is a great-grandson of the eldest son of Gaspar de Lemos, first administrator. In his case, the marriage clause, which forbids the marriage of the administrator with women from the lineages of Margarida de Sande and Sebastião de Valejo, does not apply, once his ancestor married to a collateral relative of Margarida de Sande and not a descendant.

Court sentence judging that D. Luísa Pimenta, defendant and older daughter of Cristóvão Pimenta, last administrator, lost her right to succeed in the entail of padre Bartolomeu Esteves, because she married the defendant, son of a New Christian, and that the right to succeed belongs now to D. Maria Correia, plaintiff and her sister, who received the entail's administration. It condemns the defendants to relinquish to the plaintiff the entail, with its income generated since the contested lawsuit.

Court sentence (transcription) judging Sebastião de Abreu Freire, plaintiff, as the rightful administrator of the entail of Doutor Pedro de Cascais de Abreu. Pedro Cascais de Abreu was succeded by his daughter, D. Catarina de Abreu, and by his granddaughter D. Maria de Abreu, who died without children. Sebastião Freire de Abreu was the next administrator as he was the son of Manuel Álvares de Abreu, cousin of the institutor, and had been raised by the institutor when he became fatherless. He had, however, been accused by Manuel Mendes Mexia, defendant, of being married to a descendant of a mullato, which ought to exclude him from the succession of the entail. It was proven that this accusation was false, and the defendant was condemned to relinquish the entail's properties to the plaintif.

Court sentence (transcription) judging D. Luísa Maria Antónia de Portugal, defendant, as the rightful successor of the entail of Carlos Nunes, o Velho, and the others annexed to it, because she is the only daughter of Luís de Sá e Meneses, the last administrator, and the entails have a regular succession and are not from agnation, as Manuel Correia de Lacerda, plaintiff and younger brother of Luís de Sá e Meneses, argues. He also argues that the defendant married without her father permission, but it is proven that he approved the marriage and her husband is a nobleman.
Followed by extracts of the will of the institutor (v. VINC001579 CN EA/002).

Court sentence judging the plaintiff, Diogo de Barros de Azevedo, as tutor of his son, Manuel de Figueiredo de Lacerda, as successor and administrator of the entail of Manuel Figueiredo de Lacerda and Pedro Barbosa de Figueiredo and excluding Pedro Barbosa de Figueiredo, defendant, one of the institutors and first administrator, because he is married to Isabel de Almeida, woman of bad habits and "low quality", which is forbidden by the foundation deed. It condemns the defendant to relinquish to the plaintiff the entail's assets, with their income since his marriage, seting apart the assets allocated to his children's reserved portions.

Court sentence condemning the defendant to relinquish to D. Luísa de Sousa Tavares, plaintiff, the farmstead (quinta), in Estremoz, with its income generated since the occupation, belonging to the entail of João da Guerra. The defendant is excluded from the succession because she is the daughter of Luísa da Guerra, first nominee, and Francisco Godinho, who are married against the will of the institutor. The plaintiff is the daughter of João Soares and Luísa de Sousa, appointed to succeed to Luísa da Guerra if she married Francisco Godinho, and she should fulfil the pious obligations.

Court sentence handed down by Custódio Carvalho, juiz ordinário and dos órfãos of Pombeiro da Beira, proving that Manuel Henriques had appointed Maria Martins, his wife, heiress of all his movable and real estate, being able to leave them to her heirs, if she fulfill the charges set out in his will.

Acórdão do Desembargo do Rei judging D. António de Carvalho, plaintiff, as the rightful successor of the entail of Casa de Basto, founded by D. Diogo de Castro and D. Leonor de Ataíde, his wife, and the entails of D. Beatriz de Vilhena, D. Madalena de Sousa and D. Maria de Vilhena, in representation of his late father, D. Fernando de Castro, first-born son of D. Diogo de Castro, conde de Basto, and not excluded for the reasons presented by D. Maria Madalena de Castro, defendant, such as his marriage without his parent's permission and his marriage with a descendant of a cristão-novo, which are not proven. It condemns the defendant to relinquish to the plaintiff the entails, with their income generated since the contested lawsuit.

Acórdão from Desembargo that confirms the previous sentence, declararing that it is proven that Manuel Mendes Mexia, defendant, did not act with ill will. It condemns the defendant to only pay the income from the contested lawsuit until their return and to pay the ninth part of the proceedings' expenses.

Acórdão do Desembargo do Rei judging D. António de Castro, plaintiff, as the rightful successor of the entail of Casa de Basto, founded by D. Diogo de Castro and D. Leonor de Ataíde, his wife, and the entails of D. Beatriz de Vilhena, D. Madalena de Sousa and D. Maria de Vilhena, in representation of his late father, D. Fernando de Castro, first-born son of D. Diogo de Castro, conde de Basto, and not excluded for the reasons presented by D. Maria Madalena de Castro, defendant, such as his marriage without his parent's permission and his marriage with a descendant of a New Christian, which are not proven. It condemns the defendant to relinquish to the plaintiff the entails, with their income generated since the contested lawsuit.

Acórdão do Desembargo confirming the previous sentence of Juiz do Cível and declaring that the defendant should relinquish the income generated since the contested lawsuit.

Acórdão do Desembargo do Rei judging D. António de Carvalho, plaintiff, as the rightful successor of the entail of Casa de Basto, founded by D. Diogo de Castro and D. Leonor de Ataíde, his wife, and the entails of D. Beatriz de Vilhena, D. Madalena de Sousa and D. Maria de Vilhena, in representation of his late father, D. Fernando de Castro, first-born son of D. Diogo de Castro, conde de Basto, and not excluded for the reasons presented by D. Maria Madalena de Castro, defendant, such as his marriage without his parent's permission and his marriage with a descendant of a New Christian, which are not proven. It condemns the defendant to relinquish to the plaintiff the entails, with their income generated since the contested lawsuit.

Acórdão do Desembargo do Rei judging D. António de Carvalho, plaintiff, as the rightful successor of the entail of Casa de Basto, founded by D. Diogo de Castro and D. Leonor de Ataíde, his wife, and the entails of D. Beatriz de Vilhena, D. Madalena de Sousa and D. Maria de Vilhena, in representation of his late father, D. Fernando de Castro, first-born son of D. Diogo de Castro, conde de Basto, and not excluded for the reasons presented by D. Maria Madalena de Castro, defendant, such as his marriage without his parent's permission and his marriage with a descendant of a New Christian, which are not proven. It condemns the defendant to relinquish to the plaintiff the entails, with their income generated since the contested lawsuit.

Acórdão em Relação from Desembargo partially confirming and partially revoking the previous sentence from Juiz de Fora. It judges that the assets of Pedro Barbosa de Figueiredo, defendant, annexed to the entail are free and that he only should pay their income since the contested lawsuit.