Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 41

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 41

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] or a layman, christian or jew, against one who is insane as well as one of sound mind.
[002] Against a bondsman as against a free man, lest the bondsman, whose position ought
[003] to be less advantageous, be in a stronger position than one who is free. Also against
[004] him who furnishes authority to the ejectors by precept, aid and counsel ab initio,¹
[005] as against him who ratifies the disseisin ex post facto, or does not amend the injuria
[006] when redress is asked of him, personally viva voce or at least by diligent impetration
[007] and diligent prosecution, provided, being present, he knows of it, or can and ought
[008] to know of it,² provided that there is no gross ignorance as there may be if all the
[009] inhabitants of a place know that a disseisin has been committed and he alone knows
[010] nothing of it³ though he is present. Not only does he who does the act and he who
[011] orders [and he who] does not amend the injuria of his people, though he can and
[012] knows of it, fall into the assise,⁴ as said above, but also he who enters into seisin
[013] immediately after a disseisin committed, by one or several,⁵ whether he enters with
[014] the consent of the disseisor, by gift or other transfer, or against his will by disseisin.
[015] And what if they do not enter⁶ immediately, [but] at some time before impetration?⁷
[016] All fall into the assise as principal disseisors and let all be included in the writ. But if
[017] there has been diligent impetration and diligent prosecution and they enter into seisin
[018] after impetration, we then must see whether it is immediately after the disseisin⁸ and
[019] impetration or after a long interval. But whether it is one or the other, they need not
[020] be named in the writ by a new impetration,⁹ because, no matter to whom the thing
[021] comes after impetration, since by impetration and diligent prosecution it was made
[022] litigious, he who so receives it, though not named in the writ, is bound to restore,¹⁰
[023] and must blame himself for accepting a thing so made litigious. [Since] ignorance
[024] does not excuse him, if he acts prudently, let him, while in seisin, provide for himself
[025] by a writ of warrantia cartae.¹¹ But if the disseisee has been negligent in impetrating
[026] and prosecuting and the thing has been transferred to another before impetration,
[027] whether at once or after an interval, all who take fall into the assise, some as to the
[028] penalty and restitution, if at once and without interval, some only to the penalty and
[029] not restitution, and some as to restitution but not the penalty, according as they
[030] were enfeoffed after an interval [or not], as briefly explained above. If before impetration¹²
[031] as where

Notes

1. ‘ab initio’ for ‘inductivo’

2. Infra 49

3. D. 22.6.9.2: ‘si omnes in civitate sciant quod ille solus ignorat’

4. ‘iniuriam suorum . . . in assisam,’ from lines 11-12; om: ‘In quibus casibus cum,’ redactor's introductory phrase

5. Om: ‘et ex quibus . . . disseisitores’

6. ‘ingrediantur’

7. ‘sed ante impetrationem quandocumque’

8. ‘disseisinam’

9. Infra 44, 49

10. Supra 24, infra 48-9, 83; om: ‘et non . . . restitutionem’; ‘litigiosa’: D. 44.6; C. 8.36; Drogheda, 291

11. Supra 21, 23, infra 48, 58

12. ‘ante impetrationem’