Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute
1611 immigrant to Virginia colony
The Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute was the first known prosecution for breach of promise in colonial America and the first in which the defendant was a woman. This case was tried in the chambers of the Virginia Company, and never went to a civil court, for the plaintiff withdrew his complaint. The first successful case was Stretch v. Parker in 1639.
Background
Reverend Greville Pooley proposed marriage to Cecily Jordan, a widow whose husband (Samuel Jordan) had died 3 or 4 days previously. Pooley subsequently discovered that his bride-to-be had become engaged to another man, William Farrar. The resulting lawsuit for breach of promise was significant because, until then, such suits had only been filed by women against men.
Historical context
Women - spinster or widow - could own property, and could transfer it in a will. However, they could not patent, purchase or sell land in their own name and own right: for that, a woman needed a male family member.
“Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute” enters the record as 1611 immigrant to Virginia colony. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Cecily, Jordan and Greville can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Cecily, Jordan and Greville provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5119351. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1639.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute primary sources, Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute archive and Cecily research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.