Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 160  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] entry except through such a one [C.] who wrongfully and without judgment disseised
[002] such a one [D.] after D. had disseised [B],’ the plaintiff or his heir, near or remote, or
[003] [the writ may be drawn] without mention of entry.> If the tenement is transferred
[004] beyond the third hand, the writ of entry will not lie, unless one says that a writ may
[005] be drawn without any mention of entry, in this way: ‘Order A. to restore to B. rightfully
[006] etc. so much land etc. of which C. of N. wrongfully etc. disseised the same B’ or
[007] ‘E. the father or other ancestor of the same B., whose heir he is, as he says.’ If the
[008] writ ought to be drawn for the heir of the disseisee against the disseisor himself, who
[009] is still alive,1 [how that ought to be done may be seen well enough from what has gone
[010] before.] When the tenant has been summoned, on the day given him he may essoin
[011] himself (as may the demandant if he wishes); after the essoin he may claim the view,
[012] which will lie. He may also vouch a warrantor, whether the writ mentions entry or
[013] not, provided that if it does the voucher be made from person to person of those named
[014] in the writ, and from warrantor to warrantor in order, until the disseisor himself or
[015] his heir is reached. Warrantors other than those named in the writ ought not to be
[016] called, for if those not named and outside the writ could be called, for the same reason
[017] that one could be called, a thousand could be,2 and thus the writ of entry would not
[018] hold. But if no mention is made of entry in the writ, as above, neither of degrees nor of
[019] persons, many may then be called ad infinitum. If entry is mentioned, the tenant may
[020] reply in many ways to the writ and to the other matters, as above: that his entry is
[021] not through the person named in the writ but another, such a one, not named, and if
[022] this is proved the writ falls. [Or] that it was not the ancestor named who disseised him
[023] but another, [or] that he was not disseised wrongfully but rightfully. The heir of the
[024] disseisor will have almost all the answers and defences which the disseisor himself
[025] would have against an assise of novel disseisin if he had lived, since the writ of entry
[026] partakes of the nature of an assise of novel disseisin in every respect, [as to restitution,
[027] not as to punishment,] and all may be determined by a jury. But the punishment for
[028] the injuria3 is extinguished, for no corporal punishment is to be inflicted because of
[029] the kind of disseisin, nor are damages incurred, nor will an ox be given, only an
[030] amercement for wrongful detention.4 5When the assise of novel disseisin has been
[031] taken, whether it is the tenant or the plaintiff who has lost, if often happens that the
[032] jurors have sworn falsely and that he who has lost sues by a jury of twenty-four to
[033] convict the twelve, and that before



Notes

1. Deleted

2. Infra iv, 29

3. ‘iniuriae’ for ‘in iudicio’

4. Supra 76

5. New paragraph


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