Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 358  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] she says, (so that the word ‘nothing’ refers to the dower and not to the specific vill
[002] in which the dower claimed lies,)1 and as to which she complains that the aforesaid
[003] [A.] deforces her. And unless he does so, and [if] the aforesaid B. makes you secure
[004] with respect to the prosecution of her claim etc., then summon the aforesaid A.
[005] (or ‘the aforesaid persons,’ if there are several) by good summoners to be before our
[006] justices at Westminster on such a day (or ‘at the first session when they come into
[007] those parts’) to show why they have not done so. And have there the summoners
[008] and this writ. Witness etc.' And note that this writ is as proper for the recovery of a
[009] specified dower as for one that is unspecified, though it does not state that she was
[010] specifically endowed, for that will be supplied in the narratio. If he neither appears
[011] nor essoins himself on the day of the summons, let the land be taken into the hand of
[012] the lord king by default, as on defaults in a writ of right. If he essoins himself on the
[013] first day, he will be given another day by his essoiner,2 on which, if he defaults, let it
[014] be as above. 3<The woman will recover by default whether he defaults before he has
[015] appeared or after, by the great cape or the little.> <A woman will recover dower for
[016] lack of a warrantor, where the tenant prays aid of the court [for summoning a
[017] warrantor] and does not pursue it against his warrantor: as before Martin of Pateshull
[018] in the tenth year of king Henry, [the case] of Alexander de Walpole and Grace, his
[019] wife, against John son of Robert.>4

How the woman ought to set forth her claim.

[021] When the parties appear in court, let the woman (in person or by her attorney)
[022] put forward her intentio in this way, when she claims an unspecified dower. ‘B. who
[023] was the wife of C. shows you that A. wrongfully deforces her of the third part of so
[024] much land with the appurtenances in such a vill, wrongfully for this reason, because
[025] the aforesaid C. her late husband endowed her therewith at the church door when he
[026] married her, [as one]5 who could so endow her, and if he is willing to acknowledge
[027] this that will be satisfactory, and if not she has sufficient proof,’6 or let her produce a
[028] sufficient suit. The claim for a specified dower is put in another way, thus: ‘B.
[029] who was the wife of C. of N. claims against A. such a manor (or ‘so much land with the
[030] appurtenances in such a vill’) as her dower, of which the aforesaid C. her late husband
[031] specifically endowed her at the church door on the day he married her, as one
[032] who could so endow her. And if etc. (as above).’ Thus the intentio and the claim is
[033] varied though the writ is not. [[Then let exceptions be raised] against the woman,
[034] that she cannot sue by herself, either because


1. Infra 359, 396

2. ‘essoniatorem’

3. Supra i, 408

4. B.N.B., no. 1668; C.R.R., xii, nos. 158, 1050 (marked ‘de dote’ on roll); belongs infra 359, before n. 3

5. ‘ut ille,’ as below

6. Selden Soc. vol. 80, p. 51

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