may be proved in many ways, by a comparison of seals or by witnesses or by the  country, and in many others, as above more fully [in the portion] on the authenticity  of instruments.1
If an instrument is offered to prove the modus of the constitution.
 But what if the instrument says that someone other than the husband endows the  wife? A constitution of that kind will be invalid nor will a claim of dower lie, because  of the words in the intentio, and whereof such a one, her husband, endowed her  etc. [This is true if the tenement is her husband's; it is otherwise if it is another's,  as where one endows his wife at the church door of property belonging to his father  or mother, or other kinsman, or a friend, whose consent is required, as where it is  said of which such a one, her husband, endowed her with the consent of his father  or mother or other [relative or] a friend.] Hence an instrument is incorrectly drawn  [if it says] that the father or another endows the son's wife. [But there will be no  incongruity if one looks carefully into the force of the constitution, for in order that a  constitution of dower from the property of another may be valid, two things must  join in the constitution, namely, the nomination and the consent,2 for neither suffices  without the other, because if the son nominates and the father does not consent, it  will be invalid without the consent. If though the father consents the son does not  nominate, the consent will be invalid without the nomination. Therefore a valid  constitution is made by both conjoined. The instrument is not therefore to be  rejected, because both endow, that is, the son by his nomination and the father by  his consent. If the father's endowment does not fully suffice by itself, it is good, to  the extent of consent, with the nomination.]3 But we must see if consent may be  given before dower is constituted, by letters or in some other way, as4 where at the  constitution it is said in the absence of the consenting party that he has assented,  [or] when he has not consented, if it ought to be good by ratification. It seems [that  it is good, relation being made of the consent to the church door,]5 that it ought not  to be good when he is absent; if he is not it is good,6 because the nomination alone  is of no value without the consent,7 nor [may dower be constituted] elsewhere than  at the church door and in person.8
If she was endowed by consent of the father, mother or another.
 Since a son may endow his wife by consent of his father, mother, kinsman or friend,  we must see how the constitution of such a dower is made, and whose assent is  required. It is clear that it is the assent of everyone by whose assent the dower is  constituted, with the assent and agreement of the mother as well as the father, as  [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth  years of king Henry