Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 182

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 182

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] who has right in the thing has aided himself immediately after the intrusion, on the
[002] morrow or within a week, unless hindered by reasonable cause.] The view will sometimes
[003] be denied in an action of dower, where a woman claims, in the name of dower,
[004] a manor without the appurtenances of which she was specifically endowed, as
[005] where she says ‘I claim such a manor as my dower of which A. my former husband
[006] endowed me specifically at the church door on the day he married me.’ Here the
[007] tenant will not have the view because the appurtenances are not mentioned, though
[008] it would be otherwise if it was claimed with the appurtenances, because she could
[009] show appurtenances no part of which the tenant would avow. In an action of dower
[010] the view may be denied for uncertainty, as where a woman claims the third part of
[011] a manor in the name of dower, with the appurtenances or without them; he will not
[012] have the view because she can designate no part in certain. If he claims the view
[013] of the whole tenement of which she claims the third part, he will have the view.¹
[014] If when the tenant claims the view, the woman answers that she claims nothing
[015] except the third part of that of which her husband died seised as of fee, and the
[016] tenant holds the whole and the husband's death was recent, the tenant will not have
[017] the view since he has the equivalent, that is, ‘of which her husband died seised.’ The
[018] view will also be denied to the woman if the heir sues against her for admeasurement
[019] of dower, when she holds the whole of which admeasurement is claimed, for
[020] the reason given above, [that is], ‘of which² her husband recently died seised in such
[021] a vill.’ [This is true unless she holds another tenement in the same vill.] The view
[022] does not lie because of uncertainty whether appurtenances are named or not, as
[023] where one claims land and says, ‘I claim so much land with the appurtenances, that
[024] is, whatever the tenant holds in such a vill beyond the ten librates of land he has
[025] of the gift of such a one,’ because the land sought cannot be specified, unless, an extent
[026] having first been made of the ten librates, [it is clear] how much land he holds in such
[027] vill. That having been seen and proved, let it then first proceed, [without a view of
[028] the rest,] because the extent will be preliminary, as among the pleas which follow the
[029] king, before Stephen of Segrave, [the case] of Thomas of Dunholme, citizen of
[030] London.³ [This may be true unless he claims the view of the whole of which he
[031] claims everything beyond the ten.] Several may be tenants successively, no one of
[032] whom will have the view if he claims it except the first tenant, for example,⁴ A.
[033] claims against B. so much land with the appurtenances as his right. If B. claims the
[034] view he will have it, but no one else, though he vouches one warrantor or ten. Neither
[035] the tenant nor the warrantor will have it, as where B. before he claims the view

Notes

1. Supra 181

2. ‘unde’

3. Not in B.N.B.

4. ‘Verbi’