Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 95  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] St. Edmund and Olive daughter of Andrew.1 But when all appear in court, and
[002] none wishes to answer without the other, it will then be otherwise, as in the first
[003] case.2 That one may, of necessity, have two essoins of difficulty in coming.3

Where one may have two essoins of difficulty in coming at the same time, because of necessity.

[005] Suppose that one has been impleaded in different pleas, and in one ‘languor’ is
[006] awarded him and in the other he has once essoined himself of difficulty in coming
[007] and has a day, on which he cannot come nor send since he has not appointed an
[008] attorney, nor4 may an essoin of bed-sickness follow.5 If he again essoins himself of
[009] difficulty in coming, it will either be allowed him of necessity, by counsel of the
[010] court,6 or the plea will be suspended until the essoinee may appear after ‘languor’;7
[011] proceedings will not be taken to default, as [in the roll] of Easter term of the sixteenth
[012] year of king Henry in the county of Norfolk, [the case] of Geoffrey, son of
[013] Baldwin.8 And that proceedings to default are not taken in one plea because of an
[014] essoin of bed-sickness in another may be found [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in
[015] the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth years of king Henry in the county
[016] of Middlesex, [the case] of Gilbert of Hendon.9 Especially if the second plea arises
[017] after ‘languor’ awarded. And so if the ‘languid’ party is vouched to warranty after
[018] ‘languor’ awarded, as happened in the case of the aforesaid Geoffrey. That an essoin,
[019] which at another time would not be lawful, ought to be allowed, is proved [in
[020] the roll] of Michaelmas term in the sixth and the beginning of the seventh years of
[021] king Henry in the county of Norfolk, [the case] of Ermengard of Potcote and a cerain
[022] John,10 who essoined himself against her of difficulty in coming in one plea,
[023] and to whom ‘languor’ was awarded in another, and though the essoin of difficulty
[024] in coming did not lie it was nevertheless allowed him, by counsel of the court, because
[025] of necessity, because it was better to allow the essoin, for good reason, than
[026] to proceed to default, since the essoinee was not at fault.

If a husband and wife essoin themselves together of bed-sickness.

[028] If a husband and wife first essoin themselves together of difficulty in coming, they
[029] may essoin themselves together of bed-sickness on the second day, if they wish, and
[030] have ‘languor’ together, but there will not here be several ‘languors’ but one,
[031] because of the unitary nature of the right. They may essoin themselves separately,
[032] if they wish, of difficulty in coming as well as of bed-sickness, as was said above,
[033] until they both have ‘languor’ or one has it by himself. But when both


1. C.R.R., xii, no. 736; not in B.N.B.

2. Supra 83

3. Rubric

4. ‘nec’

5. Two languors: supra 93-4, infra 104, 114, 141

6. Supra 94

7. Supra 80, infra 128

8. Not in B.N.B.: cf. no. 745 (margin)

9. C.R.R., xiv, no. 1411 (Easter 15); not in B.N.B.

10. B.N.B., no. 1513 (Hil and Easter 5); C.R.R., x, 51 (Easter 5); no roll extant for Mich. 6-7

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