And so, once they begin to be such, if several nearer heirs die successively, one after  the other, in the lifetime of the ancestor, he always begins to be a nearer heir1 who  earlier was a near heir to the ancestor, whether in the right line descending or in the  transverse,2 provided that the right line always excludes the transverse, as may  clearly be drawn from what has already been said.3 And so if the inheritance descends  to a first-born son having no heir of his body, his younger brothers or sisters  begin to be his near heirs and cease to be the heirs of their common father or other  ancestor, but his next oldest brother begins to be [his] nearer heir because he is the  older. The general rule is that he to whom the mere right descends is always the  nearer heir, whether he is the true heir or [is taken] as heir or stands in the place of  the heir, as a lord because of the felony of his tenant,4 because no one can be a nearer  heir who does not have5 the mere right. What is said of near heirs is also true of remote  heirs ad infinitum, of whom more will be said below, [of successions.]6
We must see whether he holds the whole as the ancestor held.
 7The words of the writ are Summon etc. such a one (or such persons) who hold  that land (or rent) etc. Thus we must see whether he holds the whole as the  ancestor, whose seisin the heir claims, held it, or part and not the whole. [It is clear  that the whole may be claimed in many ways, either as a single whole, as where one  claims a manor with the appurtenances or a carucate of land with the appurtenances,  or8 in another way, as9 ten librates of land with the appurtenances,10 nor does it  matter whether he does one or the other.] Hence when the demandant ought to  make the view to the jurors, they must see what and how much he puts into his  view and whether it is all that the ancestor held and as he held it, or not, for he  ought to claim by the assise what the ancestor held and as he held it, or except if  something thereof has been aliened or transferred after his ancestor's seisin, otherwise  the writ ought to fall. If the heir claims his ancestor's seisin [of several parcels]  against one person by parcels, whether the parcels are of different kinds or of the  same kind, each is separate and distinct, whether they are in one place or in different  places. If the tenant does not hold one of the parcels completely, the writ falls as to  that entire parcel, but is good as to the other individual parcels, for though there is  but a single demandant and a single tenant, there will be several different though  similar actions because of the several parcels, as it would be if one claimed