Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 282  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] and so on, in this way, that the assise cannot proceed between the demandant and
[002] the tenant, because the tenement as to which the assise is arraigned descended1
[003] from the aforesaid ancestor to the said tenant as from a common stock so that the
[004] assise does not lie between them, as between related persons, since the tenant has as
[005] much right in the land or tenement claimed [with respect to seisin]2 as he who claims,
[006] and thus, because of equality of [possessory] right, [The assise cannot determine
[007] seisin because if the demandant3 claims, he may be answered that the tenant has as
[008] much right in the tenement claimed as he who claims.] that another action will be
[009] necessary, that is, by writ of right, which determines both, the possession and the
[010] property,4 and that the assise ought therefore to remain. To this exception the
[011] demandant may reply by replicating that he claims no right by descent from a
[012] common stock, but through a feoffment made by the common ancestor [to his ancestor],5
[013] which he is prepared to prove by witnesses or by charters and instruments,
[014] as seems most expedient to him. We must then proceed on the feoffment, as will be
[015] explained more fully below.6 In order to disprove the replicator's allegation, a
[016] triplication may be made to the replication that the gift ought to be void, because
[017] the ancestor who is supposed to have made the gift was always in seisin and never
[018] withdrew from seisin or changed his status in any way, but remained in seisin himself
[019] or through his people holding in his name. And let the demandant7 show the contrary
[020] if he can, or that the facts are otherwise. This matter is treated more fully below.8
[021] And so if sister claims against sister, or parcener against parcener, because the writ
[022] de rationabili parte lies,9 because each is a nearer heir because of the right which
[023] descends in common to all as though to a single person, because of the unitary nature
[024] of the right. One may be a nearer heir though very remote with respect to the right,
[025] though not with respect to seisin, if no nearer heir appears, as10 a bastard,11 who can
[026] be neither son nor heir.

‘If such a one, the ancestor of such a one.’12

[028] We have explained above on whose death the assise lies. Now we must explain for
[029] what persons, because from this exceptions and answers may lie for the tenant. It is
[030] clear that the assise lies for a son and daughter, or daughters if there are several, on
[031] the death of a father or mother; but not for their sons or daughters on the death of
[032] their grandfather or grandmother, unless they are joined with other persons for
[033] whom the assise lies, as was said above.13 It lies for a brother on the death of a brother
[034] [and] a sister on the death of a brother or sister. Also for a nephew or niece on the
[035] death of an uncle or aunt, but not conversely. Thus this assise is restricted


1. ‘descendidit’

2. ‘quoad seisinam,’ as infra 312, 320

3. ‘petens’

4. Infra 293, 312, 324

5. Or that the tenant is not in seisin by descent but by a feoffment made by the common ancestor, as infra 323-4; cf. Barton in Tulane L. Rev. , xlii, 583

6. Infra 309 ff.

7. ‘petens’

8. Infra 293, 312, 323-4

9. Infra 293, 312

10. ‘sicut’

11. Supra 247

12. ‘talis antecessor talis,’ from line 30; om: ‘quia dicitur’

13. Supra 251

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