At a glance
- The deed recites a judgment limited to 5,000 reales; it does not record payment of that amount.
- Francisco Méndez assigns a disputed 1,600-real claim and interest to Santo Domingo of Ribadavia.
- The delivery described on the next face concerns litigation papers, not cash.
The line break that mattered
A line break can change a historical conclusion. In a deed executed on 5 June 1641, a crucial verb is divided between two lines: condeno. Read continuously, the clause says that a judge had not condemned the convent for more than 5,000 reales and interest. An earlier selected-excerpt reading treated the passage as an acknowledgment of money paid. The fuller reading supports an award recital, not a payment receipt. [1]
This distinction matters because the deed concerns a surviving dispute. Francisco Méndez describes litigation against Nuestra Señora de la Cerca in Santiago over 600 ducats from the dowry of Isabel Méndez, whom he calls his deceased mother, and interest. He maintains that the judgment should have granted the larger amount. His assertion is part of his account of the case; it is not adopted here as an independent finding that the judge made an error. [1]
The claim passes to a convent
The deed was executed inside Santo Domingo, outside the walls of Ribadavia. Its opening describes the friars assembled in chapter after the bell had been rung. Francisco assigns to that institution his disputed claim for 1,600 reales and interest against La Cerca. The two convents have different roles: the Augustinian institution in Santiago is the target of the claim; the Dominican institution in Ribadavia receives it. [1]
The 1,600 reales are the asserted shortfall discussed in the deed. Their assignment does not demonstrate that the money was recovered. Nor does a subsequent notarial description of delivery supply that missing event: the things delivered there are litigation papers. Treating that delivery as cash would repeat the original error in a different sentence. [1]
Which receipt is being cited
The deed refers back to a dowry receipt. The copied receipt elsewhere in the dossier, dated 18 December 1585, records Felipe Álvarez's acknowledgment concerning Isabel's 600-ducat dowry. A later petition expressly invokes that receipt. It supplies evidence about the earlier dowry transaction, not about a later payment by La Cerca to Francisco. [2]
A file assembled for litigation can preserve several times at once: the earlier transaction, a later party's account of it, a judicial decision, an assignment, and a certified copy. Dates and legal roles must stay attached to the document that supplies them. The 1641 deed was executed on 5 June; its copy was certified on 12 September and externally authenticated on 13 September. These are separate acts within the preserved documentary sequence. [1]
What remains open
The working edition covers folios 91r–92v, including the deed's conclusion, copying certificate, and authentication. It preserves gaps in names, clauses, signatures, and the marginal docket. The next face begins a separate power of attorney and is outside this edition. [1]
No identified acknowledgment of a convent cash payout occurs within this four-face unit. That is a bounded negative result, not proof that no payment ever occurred. Establishing actual recovery would require an appropriate receipt, account, execution record, or other evidence. For now, the supported narrative is narrower and clearer: a judgment was recited, its amount was disputed, and a further claim was assigned.
Sources & references
- Francisco Méndez cession and associated certifications, 1641
AHN, INQUISICIÓN,2029,Exp.9, fols. 91r–92v; PARES images 181–184; PDF pp. 249–252. Judgment recital on image 181; assignment and paper delivery on image 182. Link opens the civil parent-series route, not an exact-item record.
Accessed 1 Oct 2026. - Earlier receipt and later petition citing it
Same dossier: 1585 receipt, fols. 19v–20v, images 38–40, PDF pp. 57, 59–60; petition, fol. 74r, image 147, PDF p. 210. The receipt concerns the dowry acknowledgment, not a later convent payout. Link is the parent-series route.
Accessed 1 Oct 2026.
Revision history
· The initial journal edition withdraws the earlier research inference of a 5,000-real payment. Reading no con- / deno across the line break establishes a recital of what the judge awarded. The claim's later collection remains unproved.