Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 2, Page 441

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 2, Page 441

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] he does not acknowledge.] for when one has denied the service claimed, whether it
[002] is due and has been rendered or not, [seizure will be wrongful.¹ The lord must sue
[003] by the king's writ]² since in this plea the matter may be brought to the duel or the
[004] grand assise,³ [and since] it is perfectly clear that without the king's writ a free
[005] man is no more bound to answer for such service than for his free tenement.⁴ But
[006] what if the lord has recently been seised of the disputed service? May the tenant
[007] deny it? He may well do so, it is submitted, even though it has been performed,
[008] whether it is owed or not.⁵

If the plaintiff complains of both seizure and detainer.

[010] If the tenant complains of an unlawful taking and of an unlawful detainer at one
[011] and the same time and wishes to sue for both wrongs he may well do so, by the
[012] same witnesses and the same suit, and if they are in agreement and are competent
[013] and adequate persons, he may put the seizor and detainor to his law. That having
[014] been waged, [the lord] will have a day for making his law at the next county court,
[015] at which both parties may essoin themselves if they wish. If any one of the twelve
[016] oath-helpers is absent on the day given for making the law, or if it may be excepted
[017] against them that they are incompetent to make it, because they are villeins or
[018] otherwise inadequate, the lord will then be amerciable and will restore damages
[019] as above.⁶ It often happens that the lord can safely deny the detainer against gage
[020] and pledges but not the unlawful taking; in that case both will fall into the sheriff's
[021] mercy, the lord for the unlawful taking and the tenant for his false claim of unlawful
[022] detainer.

If the lord defaults after the wager of law.

[024] If the lord defaults after waging his law he must be distrained to appear at the
[025] next county court to hear his judgment on the default, at which, whether he appears
[026] or not the tenant ought to have his released beasts, since the lord fails to make his
[027] law. After such distraint, the defendant will have no essoin, because of the
[028] odium connected with his default, nor may he contradict the county court by one
[029] who heard and understood, [that is, allege] that he has not waged his law, [since
[030] in this matter as in many others the county court has record,] for if he could do so,
[031] by the same reasoning anyone could deny against the county court a view claimed,
[032] a warrantor vouched, acknowledgements and attachments [made] and the like,
[033] and it would thus follow that no plea could be determined there. [This seems to
[034] contradict those who say that the county court has no record which cannot be contradicted
[035] by one who heard and understood.]

One cannot deny anything in his opponent's record.

[037] And here note that no one, in the county court or elsewhere,

Notes

1. Apparently deleted: seizure is lawful if there is seisin of the services: infra 444, 445

2. Supra 243, 318

3. Life and members put in jeopardy, as supra 411; contra if lord has seisin: supra 243

4. Supra 302, 318; infra 444; Glanvill, xii, 25; county court will not take cognisance; infra 444, iv, 55, 56

5. Cf. infra 444

6. Supra 440