Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 230  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] the church of N., the advowson of which church A. recently recovered in our court
[002] before us (or ‘before our justices at Westminster,’ or ‘before our justices appointed
[003] for this purpose’) against the same B. (or ‘against another, such a one’) by an assise
[004] of darrein presentment there taken between them (or ‘by the judgment of our
[005] court,’ or in some other way) as to which the same A. complains that the aforesaid B.
[006] wrongfully and against our crown (or ‘in contempt of our court’) impedes him. And
[007] have etc.’ Hence we must see what is meant by ‘to impede,’ that the difference between
[008] a writ of quare impedit and of quare non permittit may be understood. ‘To
[009] impede’ is to place one's foot in the right of another, which the other has in the right
[010] to present, with quasi-seisin and right of some kind and to some degree, because he
[011] who impedes so that one may not use his seisin or quasi-seisin imposes his foot upon
[012] another's right etc. Thus the writ of quare impedit lies. But if he, the presentor, has
[013] no seisin at all, or quasi-seisin through the causa of gift,1 though from another source
[014] the right to present belongs to him,2 [as] by reason of a tenement he holds for life
[015] through some fortuitous event, by reason of dower [or] by the law of England, or to a
[016] farmer by reason of a lease or a creditor by reason of a pledge, since no seisin or quasi-seisin
[017] has come to him, one could not put his foot in the right and3 quasi-seisin he
[018] did not have. Therefore the writ of quare impedit does not lie but the writ of quare non
[019] permittit.4 This is the difference between quare impedit and quare non permittit.
[020] The word ‘impedit’ is compounded of ‘in’ and ‘pes, pedis,’ and hence he impedes
[021] who strives to place his foot in another's right, where no right belongs to him, neither
[022] of property nor of possession, [as where], when he once had [both] he transferred them
[023] to another by a causa of some kind or by judgment, but5 [if] when he once had both,
[024] he transferred the right of possession to another by some causa, who has not yet used
[025] and whom he does not permit to use, the writ of quare non permittit lies for him against
[026] the owner, that is, why the owner does not permit the possessor to use his right of
[027] possession.6

The writ of Quare non permittit.

[029] ‘The king to the sheriff, greeting. Order such a one that rightfully and without delay
[030] he permit such a one to present a suitable parson to such church, which is vacant and
[031] in his gift, as he says, as to which he complains that the aforesaid wrongfully impedes
[032] him. And unless he does so, and if the same [plaintiff] has made you secure etc., then
[033] summon him by good summoners


1. Supra 226

2. ‘cum aliunde competat ei’; quasi-seisin through causa of gift: supra ii, 162-6, P. and M., ii, 139

3. ‘et’

4. ‘id est . . . possessionis,’ infra n. 6

5. ‘de causa vel per iudicium, sed’

6. ‘id est . . . possessionis,’ from lines 20-21; om: ‘cum ratione . . . impositum’

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