Harvard Law School Library
Bracton Online -- English
Previous   Volume 2, Page 446  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    



If law is waged on both sides.1


 [002] If the plaintiff says that the captor seized his beasts wrongfully because they had
 [003] done no damage, nor did the seizor show him any damage when he offered to
 [004] satisfy him for it, [and produces suit], the distrainor must produce sufficient suit
 [005] to prove that he seized them damage fesant and therefore rightfully, or for an
 [006] acknowledged service wrongfully withheld, [If the plaintiff answers to the service
 [007] that though he acknowledges it the beasts were taken wrongfully because he had
 [008] performed the entire service, so that nothing remained in arrear, and has suit
 [009] sufficient for proof, the seizure will be wrongful, nor may the distrainor make his
 [010] defence by his law.]2 [or] because such a one complained against the plaintiff of
 [011] such a wrong, as of blows and the shedding of blood, or of a debt without writ,3
 [012] whereupon the plaintiff was summoned to appear on an appointed day to answer
 [013] thereon, on which day he neither came nor essoined himself and hence, ‘by the
 [014] judgment of my court’ he was distrained to appear on another day. On that day
 [015] he did not come, and since4 at another time etc., by judgment of the court it was
 [016] ordered that the beasts previously seized be retained and that others be taken.5
 [017] Thus they were rightfully seized by judgment; nor were they wrongfully detained
 [018] against gage and pledges since they were never claimed. Or he may say that though
 [019] the beasts were first seized, after the [first] summons, for the plaintiff's default,
 [020] and were claimed by pledges, they were released to the plaintiff on condition that
 [021] he appear on another reasonable day to answer thereon and, unless he did so, the
 [022] beasts would be returned to the lord, [and since] he did not come on that day the
 [023] beasts were returned, because6 of his default, and thus were lawfully taken. To
 [024] this the plaintiff may answer that they were wrongfully taken, for such a reason,
 [025] 7the reason being given because enquiry must always be made into the circumstances
 [026] of the seizure.8 Thus beasts may be seized rightfully or wrongfully, [but] whether
 [027] rightfully or wrongfully they ought not to be refused against gage and pledges,
 [028] provided that he who owns them is ready to do what of right he ought to do.9
 [029] And note that a wrongful taking may be amended by neighbours10 but a wrongful
 [030] detainer may not, because it is clearly against the king's peace and his crown.11

If a servant takes another's beasts in his lord's absence.


 [032] But what if the servant of some [lord] takes a tenant's beasts, the tenant complains
 [033] against the servant, that he has taken his beasts wrongfully and detained them
 [034] against gage and pledges, the servant vouches his lord's court to warranty and the
 [035] court warrants him, on the basis of a service the tenant does not acknowledge?
 [036] The servant will be discharged and the court shall answer for what he has done.
 [037] But surely the court cannot answer without the lord since the service is the lord's
 [038] concern?

Notes

1. Rubric erroneous

2. Supra 441

3. Supra 436, 441

4. ‘eo quod’

5. Infra iv, 365

6. ‘propter’

7-8. ‘assignata ratione ... capta fuerint,’ from lines 24-5

9. ‘deberet’, MA, ‘debet’, OB; infra 447

10. Supra 436

11. Supra 439

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