Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 240  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

If the bishop does not admit a clerk on the command of the lord king.

[002] ‘The king to such a bishop, greeting. We well recall that on another occasion we gave
[003] you instructions that notwithstanding the claim of B. you should admit, on the
[004] presentation of A., a suitable parson to such a church, which is vacant, the advowson
[005] of which church the same A. recently recovered in our court against the same B.
[006] by an assise of darrein presentment etc. (or ‘by a judgment of our same court’). With
[007] respect to this it has been shown us on the part of the same A. that the same B. raises
[008] an impediment to the presentation of the said A. on the ground that the said B. in
[009] our court before etc. is claiming the manor to which that advowson is appurtenant
[010] as his right. And because the same B. has not yet recovered that manor nor any of
[011] its appurtenances,1 and that advowson is among its appurtenances, we order you
[012] that notwithstanding the claim of B. etc.’ If a clerk presented by one who has lost
[013] by judgment brings an action before any ecclesiastical judges against the clerk
[014] presented by him who recovered the right to present, in order to obstruct what was
[015] properly settled in the court of the lord king, let a prohibition issue to the judges
[016] ordering them not to proceed, by this writ.

If a clerk presented by one who lost impleads the clerk of one who recovered by judgment, let this prohibition issue.

[018] ‘The king to such a one and his fellow judges, greeting. It has been shown to us on
[019] the part of A. that whereas in our court before our justices etc. he once arraigned an
[020] assise of darrein presentment against B. as to which patron in time of peace etc. to
[021] such church, the same B. did not deny that the clerk who last died parson in the
[022] same church had been presented by the same A. and been admitted on his presentation,
[023] and hence in our same court it was decided that the aforesaid A. should remain
[024] in his seisin, and that on our mandate and on his presentation the bishop of the place
[025] should admit [his] clerk, who admitted a certain C.; now D. whom the aforesaid B.
[026] (who lost the presentation) had once presented impleads the aforesaid C. before you
[027] with respect to that church by authority of letters of the lord pope. [Since] if the
[028] same D.2 should succeed before you in the case mentioned he could overturn what
[029] was properly done in our court, (or3 ‘Since this would be manifestly against our
[030] crown and dignity, which we ought not to suffer,’)4 we order you not to proceed
[031] further in that cause etc. Witness etc.’5 There is another [writ] on the same matter.


1. Supra 220, 239

2. ‘D’ for ‘B’

3. ‘vel’

4. ‘Quod nos non capere debeamus,’ from last lines

5. Infra iv, 255-7

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