Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 2, Page 261

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 2, Page 261

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] in the marriage. That the demandants, all or some of them, prove that they have
[002] right is not sufficient to take possession from the tenant unless one of them proves
[003] he has the greater right, for equality of right does not take seisin from a tenant,
[004] because of the advantage of possessing and the privilege of possession. Therefore
[005] when the tenant denies their right, since by his denial the matter is put in doubt,
[006] unless one of them can show that he is the first and principal feoffor the tenant
[007] will remain in seisin, as on the failure of proof, despite the fact that [the other] has
[008] right, since proof may fail though there is no absence of right. If the inquest finds
[009] that all the enfeoffments¹ are from one and the same time, namely, from the Conquest,
[010] judgment must still be for the possessor since they are on an equal footing
[011] with respect to time and right, and equality does not take away possession, as above.
[012] And so if the oldest feoffment cannot be ascertained or proved in any way, or if
[013] the jurors can come to no conclusion, possession will still remain with the tenant,
[014] as on the failure of proof, because one who doubts or speaks obscurely does not prove,
[015] [and] because so long as there is doubt whether something exists it is as though it
[016] did not exist. Though the inquest speaks of [enfeoffments all at] one time, there
[017] may still be priority as to the day or the hour, by which greater right the tenant may
[018] be ousted from possession, [but] if there is doubt or complete ignorance as to these
[019] the demandant's proof will not prevail. When the jurors know nothing of priority of
[020] time, of the day or the hour, but say that the demandant had last seisin, that will
[021] still not suffice, for one may be in seisin though he has no right or no greater right.
[022] ²When the inheritance descends both from the father's side and the mother's and,
[023] the father having died and the heir being unmarried, the mother renders her inheritance
[024] to the heir and institutes him heir to hold of the chief lords, the heir will at
[025] once be bound to homage to all the chief lords of both inheritances, since the fees of
[026] all are delivered. Then let the rule above be followed, regard being paid to the priority
[027] of delivery of the other [the father's] inheritance and the priority of enfeoffment
[028] [within] that inheritance, not of both until after both inheritances are once united
[029] in the person of the one heir and he is once married by reason of the first delivery.
[030] For thereafter, if the heir is under age and again to be married, the order [of priority
[031] within] the inheritance first delivered will not be observed ³<but taking all the
[032] feoffors of both inheritances together> that lord must be preferred to the others who
[033] is the first and principal feoffor of the inheritances taken as a whole. Suppose the
[034] father and⁴ mother enfeoff⁵ their heir at one and the same time of [their] several
[035] fees held of several chief lords, to be held of themselves and their heirs;

Notes

1. ‘feoffamenti’; om: ‘petentes et tenens’

2. Supra 260, n. 1

3. Not among the addiciones supra i, 383 omitted in OB, CE, Y, MA, MG

4. ‘et’

5. ‘feoffaverint’; ‘feoffaverit’: CM, LA, MC, OB, Y