Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 248  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] to the chief lord.1 If the minor's tenant is of full age we must see to whom he ought to
[002] pay relief, to the chief lord or to his warrantor, for homage may be taken at once
[003] though the heir, his warrantor, is within age, and when it is taken relief ought to
[004] follow forthwith;2 thus it is to be paid immediately to the chief lord. It seems,
[005] however, according to some, that though relief follows homage it is not to be paid
[006] before the warrantor reaches full age. 3Suppose the tenant of a tenant [C] makes this
[007] agreement with his lord [B], that after his death his heir, if a minor, shall not be in
[008] his [B's] wardship, but in that of his nearer kinsmen, and4 if he is of full age he shall
[009] pay no relief.5 The mesne lord [B] then dies, leaving an heir within age,6 and when
[010] he is in the wardship of his lord [A] that same lord claims the wardship of the heir
[011] of the second tenant [C], if he is under age, or his relief if he is of full age. The
[012] agreement is put forward by the kinsmen. The lord answers that the act of his tenant
[013] could not take from him the wardship or relief due him by reason of the fact that the
[014] heir of his immediate tenant is in his wardship. The rejoinder is made him that he
[015] may claim no greater right in the aforesaid [wardship or relief] than he who is in his
[016] wardship could were he of full age, for if he should make such claim the agreement
[017] would bar him, which is true, [that is], that the chief lord may claim nothing. But we
[018] must distinguish whether [or not], by force of such grant, any heir of him with whom
[019] the agreement was made ever was7 in the wardship of his kinsmen when under age
[020] or quit of relief when of full age. If so the agreement prevails, because of the seisin of
[021] the ancestor who died seised of the acquitance, and because at his own death his lord
[022] and feoffor [B] was not in seisin. But if the tenant has never been quit and the lord
[023] dies seised, the chief lord will prevail over the kinsmen for no other reason than that
[024] the heir of his [immediate] tenant [B], being within age, cannot answer to the charters
[025] or reply to the agreement.

Whether relief ought to be given from socage and how much.

[027] We have spoken of the relief furnished from a military fee. Now we must see
[028] whether a relief ought to be given from socage, since from that neither wardship
[029] nor homage is due the chief lord, and where there is no wardship there is no relief,
[030] but conversely. In truth, no wardship is due the chief lord from socage, but it
[031] falls to the kinsmen, as was said above,8 nor is homage due,9


1. Infra 253, 256

2. Supra 247

3. New paragraph

4. ‘et’

5. Supra 148, infra iv, 318

6. Om: ‘qui’

7. ‘umquam fuit’

8. Supra 226; unless special custom: C.R.R., xi, no. 1436

9. Supra 110, 244

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