Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 140  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] whether the tenement belongs to the lord king or the plaintiff, as where1 there is a
[002] dispute as to boundaries in the demesnes of the lord king, then, by the order and at
[003] the pleasure of the lord king let a perambulation be made, as [in the roll] of Michaelmas
[004] term in the eighth and the beginning of the ninth years of king Henry in the
[005] county of York, an assise of novel disseisin [beginning] ‘if Roger the clerk and others,’2
[006] [where] a perambulation between the lord king and Richard of Percy was made by
[007] twelve knights [and where four knights] afterwards made the result of that perambulation
[008] known to the justices of the Bench.

The assise falls completely because of uncertainty.

[010] Because of uncertainty as to the thing in dispute an assise falls completely, changed
[011] neither into a jury nor a perambulation, as may be seen in the case of a woman and the
[012] warrantor of her dower before dower has been assigned. If both are ejected from the
[013] tenement and the woman alone seeks restitution of the third part, she will not recover
[014] by the assise, because she cannot specify her third part, because it was never identified
[015] or assigned her. And so if the heir ejects her from the whole when he comes to
[016] full age, she will not recover against him by the assise for the reason aforesaid, no
[017] matter what kind of fee it is, socage or a military fee. This is made clear in the last
[018] eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Norfolk, an assise of novel disseisin [beginning]
[019] ‘if Gilbert son of Gilbert.’3 The same may be said of others who hold in
[020] common before partition, as co-heirs and parceners, or neighbours if they hold in
[021] common by consent, because of a dispute, by reason of the compromise of a claim.
[022] Hence if a stranger ejects them all, or some of them, and one alone seeks restitution
[023] of some particular part, let him take nothing by the assise, because he cannot designate
[024] any certain portion. But if he claims the whole, or if they all claim to be held in
[025] common, the assise will proceed. And so if a parcener is ejected by a parcener.4 And
[026] let the same be done with respect to other things which are held in common. 5<And
[027] what if it is said ‘in such a manor.’ It is clear that a manor may exist by itself, composed
[028] of several edifices joined together, without6 vills and hamlets adjoining. It may
[029] also exist by itself with several vills and hamlets adjacent, none of which may alone
[030] be called a manor, but vills or hamlets. A manor may also exist by itself as a chief
[031] manor and include several manors which are not chief manors, and several vills and
[032] several hamlets, as though under one head.> The assise also falls because of uncertainty
[033] as to the place, as to the county or vill, as above, as


1. ‘ut si’

2. B.N.B., no. 907; C.R.R., xi, no. 2414 (sidelined)

3. Not in B.N.B.

4. Supra 32

5. Supra i, 399; belongs supra 137

6. ‘sine’

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