Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 173  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] by reason of the land or the several persons who are, so to speak, a single heir) and
[002] here let a division be made as above. The count of the descent is sometimes made
[003] from the right line descending to the transverse line, to one degree or to several,
[004] according as the right of descent is divided or is not. [And as the right of succession
[005] is sometimes divided among the several persons who succeed, so several rights of
[006] succession may be conjoined, by the deaths of the same persons by reason of whom
[007] the division was made, into a single right in a single person, the heir by the jus
[008] 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.

[010] When it ought to be made in that way, let this be said: And from such an ancestor
[011] the right of that land descended to such a one as son and heir, and from him to such
[012] a one as son and heir. And because he died without an heir of his body the right of
[013] that land reverted to such a one as uncle or aunt and heir, or great-uncle or greataunt
[014] and heir, or to several aunts. And from such, a division having been made of
[015] the right, to their heirs and the heirs of heirs, by divisions, as above, or without
[016] them. In that case, if one of several parceners claims by himself without the others,
[017] and it is objected against him that he has parceners stemming from the same
[018] origin, and the demandant says that they can claim nothing by that descent, let
[019] them be summoned nevertheless, to show what right they claim in the land sought,
[020] as [in the roll] of Hilary term in the fifteenth year of king Henry in the county of
[021] Buckingham, [the case] of William de Bosco.1 This rule is generally observed whenever
[022] it may be presumed that one who is not named has a right in the thing claimed.
[023] And that he ought to be summoned is shown [in the roll] of Hilary term in the
[024] 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.

[026] If the eldest dies in the lifetime of the father, some say that no mention need be
[027] made of him as though he had never been in existence, [according to some, which is
[028] not true,] 3because the right does not descend from the ancestor to any heir except
[029] by the death of the ancestor, and hence, when the son dies in the life of the father,
[030] leaving an heir, son or daughter, since they are in the potestas of the grandfather4
[031] the right at once descends to them.5 <Hence it is necessary to say ‘that from such
[032] an ancestor the right descended or ought to descend to such a one, the grandson or
[033] granddaughter,’ or if the son died without heirs of his body, ‘to such a one, his
[034] brother.’>6 7<But there are some who say, and it is true, that mention must be made
[035] of a son who has died in the lifetime of his father, the view of William of York.>8


1. C.R.R., xiv, no. 1144; not in B.N.B.

2. B.N.B., no. 1034; C.R.R., xii, no. 33

3-5. ‘quia nulli . . . eis ius,’ from 174, lines 1-4

4. Supra ii, 34

6. ‘et unde . . . defecerint,’ from 173, last lines, to 174

7. Supra i, 415

8. Supra ii, 197, 198, 367

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