Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 235  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] the writ as well as for one named, by force of the word ‘who’ which is distributive and
[002] does not describe specific persons.1 Hence it would not be sufficient to say ‘notwithstanding
[003] the claim of such a one,’ named in the writ, since any other person, not
[004] specially named, could claim if the assise should find for him. But suppose that the
[005] assise is taken not in the manner of an assise but in the manner of a jury, as where a
[006] gift is put forward and a charter, an agreement or a condition or the like. Let the
[007] phrase ‘notwithstanding the claim of such a one’ then be used, because the words
[008] ‘who as patron’ are not indeterminate, as is shown in the roll of Trinity and Michaelmas
[009] in the third and the beginning of the fourth years of king Henry, in the county of
[010] Oxford, between Robert of Harpeden and Reginald of Whitechurch, an assise of
[011] darrein presentment concerning the church of Harpeden.2 And so in any case where
[012] the assise is not taken in the manner of an assise. There may be another form of concord,
[013] where there is a dispute (by the assise of darrein presentment or by writ of
[014] quare impedit or quare non permittit) between several having one right, who are so
[015] to speak a single heir. If one of the several is unwilling to consent the presentation
[016] will remain and the bishop will make provision for the church, nor can any privilege
[017] prevail, neither age, dignity, nor a majority of the persons concerned, for either all
[018] consent or none.3 But they may consent in many different ways, and let the writ
[019] [to the bishop] always be drawn according to the form of the consent. One of the
[020] several may consent in this way, namely, that he will never consent to the clerk his
[021] parceners have previously presented, but will freely consent to another whom his
[022] parceners will choose and present. Let the writ then be drawn in this form.


[024] ‘The king to such a bishop, greeting. Know that when A. was summoned in our court
[025] before etc. to answer B. and C. the wife [of D.] as to why he impeded them in their
[026] presentation of a suitable parson to such a church, which is vacant, two parts of the
[027] advowson of which church B. and C. claim, the same A. appeared in our same court
[028] and said that he rightfully impeded because the right of presenting to the third part
[029] belongs to him since he is a parcener of the aforesaid B. and C. He also added that he
[030] would never consent to the clerk whom B. and C. had presented, because, so he said,
[031] he was unsuitable, but would consent to someone other than the first presented by
[032] the same B. and C. provided he was suitable. And therefore we order you, if the aforesaid
[033] B. and C. agree on a suitable parson and they together with the aforesaid A.
[034] present him to you in common, to admit that


1. Supra 210

2. B.N.B., no. 68; C.R.R., viii, 99-100 (Mich. 3-4); also B.N.B., nos. 74, 357, 426, 474

3. Supra ii, 223, iii, 130, 205, 225

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