Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 2, Page 238

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 2, Page 238

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] may no more attorn homage and service here than waive his fee,] because whether
[002] he wishes to or not he shall warrant and defend because of the homage. And that
[003] [a lord] cannot attorn homage [except in the cases noted above] is stated [in
[004] the roll] of Easter term in the seventh year of king Henry in the county of Hertford,
[005] from the eyre, [concerning land there] and a tenement in the county of
[006] Cambridge, [the case] of William son of Benedict, citizen of London, and Geoffrey
[007] de Lucy, tenant, and earl William de Mandeville, the chief lord, concerning the
[008] tenement of N. de Gingesville.¹ And when the said Geoffrey, the tenant, was attached
[009] and² summoned to do his homage and service to the said William, to whom the said
[010] earl had given it, attorning the said Geoffrey to the said William, the said Geoffrey
[011] refused to be attorned to him and disavowed him completely in court, saying that he
[012] held nothing of him, nor wished to, nor did he wish to depart from his lord who had
[013] enfeoffed him. Because of this the said earl was summoned to show what right he
[014] claimed in the service of the said Geoffrey. He came and acknowledged that he had
[015] given the aforesaid William the homage and service of the said Geoffrey from the
[016] tenement which [Geoffrey] held of him in the aforesaid vill. To which Geoffrey replied
[017] that he was unwilling to be attorned to the aforesaid William unless the court
[018] should so decide. He also said he held two tenements of the said earl, one in the
[019] vill aforesaid and the other elsewhere, and had been enfeoffed of both at one and
[020] the same time for a single homage and service nor did he wish to divide his homage
[021] and perform two where previously he had performed but one, unless the court
[022] should so decide, nor to be attorned to the said William. And because the earl
[023] acknowledged and granted that the said Geoffrey should do service in all things to
[024] the said William from the aforesaid tenement in the aforesaid vill, and because the
[025] said Geoffrey showed the court no reason why he could or should not do that service
[026] to the said William, it was decided that William have his seisin of the aforesaid
[027] service, saving to the said earl the homage of the whole fee aforesaid. And for this
[028] reason, so it seems, because homage could not be divided or attorned against the
[029] tenant's will though the service could. Thus it appears that service may always be
[030] attorned against the tenant's will, though homage may not, except in the cases
[031] above mentioned. And hence if ³he to whom the service has been attorned distrains,
[032] the tenant (if he so wishes) may disavow him,⁴ ⁵<and rightfully, because of

Notes

1. Not in B.N.B., no roll extant. Presumably from the Hertfordshire eyre of 1220 (no roll extant). William acquired Digswell, co. Herts., by mortgage from Mandeville. ‘Gingesvilla’ presumably a corruption of ‘Digonesvilla.’ I owe this information to Mr. C. A. F. Meekings

2. ‘et’

3-4. Reading: ‘Et unde si ipse cui attornatus fuerit districtionem fecerit, poterit tenens si voluerit illum deadvocare’; the words ‘[Si] cum dominus servitium ... attornari,’ transposed after the addicio: infra 239, n. 6

5. Supra i, 383