Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 183  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] vouches C. to warranty, and C. when he comes by the summons, before he has
[002] warranted or after, claims the view; he will not have it because the warrantor is
[003] bound to answer to his charter, or those of his ancestors, in which the land claimed
[004] is specified. And even if the tenant has no charters, the warrantor knows or ought
[005] to know what land the tenant holds of him, and from what land he took the homage
[006] and service of him who vouched him to warranty, and when he warrants, by judgment
[007] or in another way, he ought to know of what land he was vouched to warranty,
[008] of what kind and of how much. The same will be done in the case of several
[009] warrantors, no one of whom will have the view until the plea has come to the duel,
[010] if the duel is waged. Then, after the duel waged and the gages accepted, let the view
[011] be made to the champions. And because there has been no view in the whole plea,
[012] let them be told to view that land before the day given them; this is for the oath,
[013] which they will take ‘de visu suo,’ as may be seen below [in the portion] on the
[014] oaths of champions.1 The view does not lie after the land has once been seized into
[015] the king's hand by default, because the equivalent suffices, because the demandant
[016] must designate to the viewers the kind and quantity of land, what and how much
[017] he claims and by what metes, and when it has so been seized, it ought to be claimed
[018] by replevin in the same way and in the same quantity, which suffices for the view.
[019] But the view is sometimes granted after default out of abundant caution, for the
[020] oath of the champions, as [in the roll] of Trinity term in the fourth year of king
[021] Henry.2

If after the view claimed the tenant essoins himself and afterwards says he has not had the view.

[023] View is sometimes denied, as where, [after] it is once granted and, before the tenant
[024] has had it, he causes himself to be essoined on his day, since he ought to have complained
[025] that he had not had the view, as is done with respect to summonses, when
[026] one essoins himself where he ought to have challenged the writ of summons.3

Whether the view lies for incorporeal things, as rights.

[028] We have explained above where the view does not lie for corporeal things which
[029] may be seen and touched, and the reason why. Now we must see whether the view


1. Not dealt with in treatise; a portion on the litis contestatio may have once existed

2. B.N.B., no. 1436 (in margin: ‘Magnum recordum et bonum’); C.R.R., ix, 132 (marked ‘De recto’)

3. Supra 66

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