by reason of the land or the several persons who are, so to speak, a single heir) and  here let a division be made as above. The count of the descent is sometimes made  from the right line descending to the transverse line, to one degree or to several,  according as the right of descent is divided or is not. [And as the right of succession  is sometimes divided among the several persons who succeed, so several rights of  succession may be conjoined, by the deaths of the same persons by reason of whom  the division was made, into a single right in a single person, the heir by the jus  accrescendi, because his co-heirs and parceners died without heirs of their bodies.]
If the count ought to be made from the right line to the transverse.
 When it ought to be made in that way, let this be said: And from such an ancestor  the right of that land descended to such a one as son and heir, and from him to such  a one as son and heir. And because he died without an heir of his body the right of  that land reverted to such a one as uncle or aunt and heir, or great-uncle or greataunt  and heir, or to several aunts. And from such, a division having been made of  the right, to their heirs and the heirs of heirs, by divisions, as above, or without  them. In that case, if one of several parceners claims by himself without the others,  and it is objected against him that he has parceners stemming from the same  origin, and the demandant says that they can claim nothing by that descent, let  them be summoned nevertheless, to show what right they claim in the land sought,  as [in the roll] of Hilary term in the fifteenth year of king Henry in the county of  Buckingham, [the case] of William de Bosco.1 This rule is generally observed whenever  it may be presumed that one who is not named has a right in the thing claimed.  And that he ought to be summoned is shown [in the roll] of Hilary term in the  ninth year of king Henry in the county of Berkshire, [the case] of Reginald Morin.2
If the eldest dies in the lifetime of the common father.
 If the eldest dies in the lifetime of the father, some say that no mention need be  made of him as though he had never been in existence, [according to some, which is  not true,]3because the right does not descend from the ancestor to any heir except  by the death of the ancestor, and hence, when the son dies in the life of the father,  leaving an heir, son or daughter, since they are in the potestas of the grandfather4  the right at once descends to them.5 <Hence it is necessary to say that from such  an ancestor the right descended or ought to descend to such a one, the grandson or  granddaughter, or if the son died without heirs of his body, to such a one, his  brother.>67<But there are some who say, and it is true, that mention must be made  of a son who has died in the lifetime of his father, the view of William of York.>8