a single thing divided among several; there will be several actions because of the  several parcels and the several persons. But if he claims a single parcel against one  person by parcels, as one carucate as several virgates, or one virgate as several  acres,1 if the tenant does not hold the whole the writ falls.23[He may not hold the  whole] either because he never held anything therein, or if he did, transferred it to  another and so ceased to hold. We must then see when he ceased, and when the thing  was4 transferred to another, whether before the writ impetrated or after, for if  before the tenant will then not be guilty of dolus and thus culpa may not be charged  against him.5 But if after diligent impetration and prosecution, fearing the impending  suit6 and the controversy begun, he transferred the property to another  mutandi judicii causa,7 lest the action be brought against him, he will be considered  the possessor nonetheless, and not only he who transferred but the transferee,  at the pleasure of the demandant, that is, one or both.8 But if the demandant is  negligent either in impetrating or prosecuting, the fault must be attributed to him.  Not, however, if it is the sheriff who has been negligent in connexion with the summons  and the sheriff's duty. If it is the chief lord who holds, though he does not hold  the whole but others through him, the assise will proceed against him for the part he  holds,9 as [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Warwick  in the fifth year of king Henry.10 And that the assise ought to fall because of an  overclaim,11 where the demandant claims more than the tenant holds, is proved in  the eyre of William of Ralegh in the county of Leicester, [the case] of Humphrey  of Leicester and Juliana his wife, near the end of the roll.12 Suppose that the tenant  says that he does not hold the whole tenement and the jurors when examined do not  know whether he does or not; the assise falls for uncertainty, as [in the roll] of the  last eyre of William of Ralegh in the county of Northampton, [the case] of William  of Camera.13
Of the tenant's answer to the clauses of the writ.
 When the demandant's intentio has been put forward and supported,14 on each  clause of the writ, as said above, the tenant, when he has no warrantor or defender,  must answer the separate clauses in order and except against all, why the action or  assise ought not to proceed,15 or some, and show the contrary or that the fact is  otherwise, and then, to establish and prove his exception, put himself on the assise  and prove [it] by the assise taken in the manner of an assise, since to except is of no  value unless the exception is proved in the manner of an assise or of a jury. An  answer may be made to the first clause, if such a one, the ancestor [of such a one]  was seised, as a father or mother