Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 101  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] and those that are incomplete, no matter at what time begun, before the felony or
[002] after it, can never be carried into effect after condemnation. 1Suppose that when the
[003] felon has been convicted by some [proper] form of conviction, the justices de
[004] facto though not de jure take into the king's hand land given in fee or demised for a
[005] term before the felony committed, so that the king has his year and day.2 Cannot the
[006] chief lord then recover such seisin as the king had? Not de jure, because the felon
[007] cannot forfeit to another to hold in demesne land [so] given in fee, nor even that given
[008] for a term before the term has ended, because of the servitude of having the usufruct
[009] for a term of life or years acquired by the termor before the felony perpetrated. [But
[010] in truth, because at the conclusion of the term it is to revert to the chief lord as his
[011] escheat,3 the king will have his term, provided that at the end of it he recompenses
[012] the termor to the value, so that he suffers no loss.] And if the chief lord on his own
[013] authority puts himself in seisin after the year and day the termor will have his
[014] re-entry by the ordinary writ, namely, ‘Why he intruded himself in that land during
[015] his term.’ But if the felon demised the land at will and from year to year, before or
[016] after the felony committed, it will be the escheat of the chief lord immediately
[017] after condemnation, provided the lord king [first] has his term. And [in holding
[018] that] before condemnation, [that is] until the felony is proved, the land of a felon
[019] can never be the escheat of the chief lord, the law4 agrees with English custom:
[020] D. 39.5.15, where it is said that gifts made after the commission of a capital crime
[021] are valid unless condemnation follows.

If a gift is made of another's property.

[023] We have seen above the gifts5 which are valid and effective and cannot be revoked
[024] when the donor makes [the thing] the property of the taker, [as where he makes a
[025] gift] of his own property.6 Now we must see [the gifts] which are not valid and
[026] effective [and may be revoked] though [the thing] is at once made the property of
[027] the taker, [as] where a gift is made of another's property, [for] though it is valid as
[028] between7 donor and donee, and as against those who have no right, it is not valid
[029] as against him who has right, [at once, only after a time,8 for if he immediately
[030] ejects the feoffee the latter will not recover by the assise, but if through negligence
[031] or acquiescence he has time [in possession] he cannot be disseised without writ and
[032] judgment.] A thing may be entirely and in every way another's, with respect to
[033] the right and the property, the fee and the free tenement, the usufruct and the bare
[034] use, as where one has put himself in seisin


1. New paragraph

2. Infra 364-5

3. Infra 364, 366, 369; lord is seised, not termor: B.N.B., no. 422 (margin)

4. G’terbock, 58n.

5. ‘donationes,’ and plural throughout

6. ‘de re propria,’ from line 27

7. Reading: ‘videndum quae [donationes] non valent cum effectu, licet [res] statim fiat accipientis, ut si donatio ... aliena, [quia] licet valeat quantum’

8. Infra 123, 127

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College