[001] more remote in the transverse line, but also their [sons and daughters], greatgrandsons [002] and greatgranddaughters, and all others descending from them. But if it is [003] the uncle who is first in possession of the inheritance, by intrusion or in some other [004] way, and the grandson claims against him on his father's seisin, or by descent from [005] his grandfather, not the assise but only the writ of right will lie, by which, though [006] it is found by the narration that the grandson is the nearer and more rightful heir, [007] because of the advantage of the right, he nevertheless may take nothing by the [008] judgment because of the casus regis,1 which has so far stood to the contrary, and the [009] judgment will remain in suspense until (if the parties so wish) the dispute is settled [010] by agreement. [But what] if nephew and uncle, within the potestas of the same2 [011] ancestor, are both found on the hearth at the time of his death? In that case, since [012] both3 are found in the ancestral hall or hearth, it is evident that each has a free tenement [013] immediately, since each is a right and near heir, but he ought to be preferred [014] who has the advantage of the right and the property, and of the right line which [015] excludes the transverse, that is, the grandson, because in his person the right and the [016] property are conjoined with seisin,4 which is not so in the person of the uncle, because [017] he has only what pertains to possession not to right. Hence if he is ejected by the [018] nephew he will not recover by an assise of novel disseisin, not only because of the [019] advantage of right in the nephew, but because he did not have vacant seisin. If the [020] uncle ejects the nephew, the nephew will recover by the assise. And so if the nephew [021] is in seisin at the time of the death and the uncle, when he is out of seisin, ejects him. [022] Conversely, if the uncle is in seisin, and the nephew out of seisin ejects the uncle, the [023] uncle will recover by the assise, [if he has been in peaceful seisin for a long time, [024] otherwise5 not, as below,] saving to the nephew his right on the property. But if [025] both are out of seisin at the time of the ancestor's death, and thus neither on the [026] hearth, the possession is then either vacant or the chief lord, the king or another, is [027] in possession. If it is vacant, we must then see which of them first puts himself into [028] seisin. If it is the nephew, he immediately has a free tenement, for the reason aforesaid, [029] and if he is ejected by his uncle he will recover by the assise. If the uncle puts himself [030] into seisin first and is immediately and quickly ejected by the nephew, he will not [031] recover against the nephew by the assise, though he will against others. But if he [032] has time [in possession] through the negligence or weakness of the nephew, since his [033] seisin takes substance through time, if he is then ejected by the nephew he will [034] recover by the assise, because ejected without judgment, though rightfully. If [035] seisin is not vacant, when the chief lord is in seisin [neither] may put himself into [036] seisin without his consent. We must then see, which