Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 368  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] has been outlawed because of felony; is she on that account to be ejected from her
[002] inheritance? There were different opinions on this question: according to Martin [of
[003] Pateshull] she ought not to be ejected because of her husband's act, neither in his
[004] lifetime nor at his death. Stephen of Segrave took the contrary view, that she ought
[005] to be ejected, not to be restored while her husband was alive. The reason might
[006] perhaps be because the inheritance would give the outlawed husband occasion to
[007] come to his wife, which would be contrary to the peace. Martin used to say that she
[008] ought not on that account to be ejected from her inheritance unless she were
[009] convicted of harbouring her husband after the outlawry, or had been a consenting
[010] party to the felony from the beginning. If not, he used to say that she might well
[011] support him and find him in necessaries in another realm. But suppose that after
[012] her husband has been outlawed a wife, being out of seisin, claims her inheritance
[013] or part of it; though she is without fault she ought not to be heard without her
[014] husband, nor may she bring an assise of novel disseisin without him if she has been
[015] ejected after his outlawry. When the inheritance is common to both husband and
[016] wife, as where land has been given to the husband in maritagium with the wife, and
[017] one of them has committed felony for which he or she has suffered the judgment of
[018] outlawry, quaere whether he ought to lose the whole land, [that is], the part belonging
[019] to the one who is without fault.1 When the property is common among parceners
[020] and one commits felony and is convicted, quaere whether he forfeits more
[021] than his portion. It is evident that he does not. In the first case, though mention
[022] is made of the husband in the maritagium the land will not be the husband's to
[023] the extent that he can forfeit it, for the whole will remain to the wife as her
[024] inheritance.2 If a woman holds in common [with another], as a mother with her
[025] son where her dower has never been separated or assigned, and the son is convicted
[026] of felony, quaere whether he can forfeit his mother's dower. It is evident that he
[027] cannot; she will have an action against him whose escheat the land is. What shall
[028] be said of one who at the time he is condemned is in seisin of another's right, if
[029] having committed a disseisin today he is convicted on the morrow? It is submitted
[030] that he cannot forfeit the right of others and that an action by writ of entry lies for
[031] them, if they wish, against those in possession. If before conviction one has granted
[032] land to another for the taker's life, the question then is whether it was done before
[033] the felony committed or after. If before, the land will not be an escheat before the
[034] tenant's death, since no one may forfeit another's right;3 If after the felony it will
[035] be otherwise. If the convicted man has granted it for his own life, the term expires
[036] with his life.



Notes

1. ‘qui sine culpa fuerit,’ from line 17

2. Supra 96

3. Supra 100, 367


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