Harvard Law School Library
Bracton Online -- English
Previous   Volume 3, Page 136  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    



[001] does it matter, so far as restitution is concerned, whether he has a right in the thing
 [002] or not, as long as he has been despoiled contrary to the order of law, or, without judgment.
 [003] And in another place, if possession comes to the true lord by violence, that is,
 [004] by force and without judgment, and where he ought to sue by action he makes himself
 [005] judge and ejects his disseisor, the possessor in bad faith, that is, the disseisor, without
 [006] distinguishing further, that is, despite any exception raised by the true lord, will
 [007] regain the advantage of possession.1 And in another place, 2that a lord who ejects or
 [008] despoils is required to restore possession to him he ejects, though he possesses by
 [009] force, stealth or at will from him who has ejected.3 And in another place, that 4he who
 [010] has secured possession from me by force, that is, by disseisin, [if] he is despoiled by
 [011] another, who has no right, will have restitution by the assise.]5 The penalty of the
 [012] spoliator, if the thing is his own whose seisin he usurped to himself without judgment,
 [013] [will be]6 that he restore it with the issues taken and to be taken,7 hardly to be heard
 [014] later on the question of property.8 If it is the other's, let him restore it in the same
 [015] way, never to be heard subsequently either on the possession or on the property.

[An exception is given a tenant by reason of the tenement.]9


 [017] An exception often lies for a tenant against a plaintiff by reason of the tenement, as
 [018] where not the plaintiff but another has the free tenement, as where a guardian or
 [019] farmer, a creditor or villein complains and seeks restitution by the assise; it does not
 [020] lie for them but for the owner in whose name they are in possession, because the exception
 [021] of free tenement nullifies their action.10 An exception also lies for a tenant by
 [022] reason of the tenement for a thing which is sacred and holy, as places dedicated to
 [023] God, which cannot be possessed by anyone.11 Therefore the assise lies for no one and,
 [024] since here the assise falls, not the writ, it is turned into a jury to inquire into the
 [025] trespass, whether such has been committed in a sacred thing, of which there can be
 [026] no disseisin, in order that the trespass be amended by the jury, and both, the plaintiff
 [027] as well as the trespasser, [be] in mercy: the plaintiff for his false claim, the trespasser
 [028] for his trespass. [And so] if the tenement is the property of a universitas or public,
 [029] within the city or borough [If [it is a royal or public road and] it is built upon or encroached
 [030] upon, correction will belong to the lord king. It will be a trespass and purpresture
 [031] rather than a disseisin; if it is a public or royal road outside the city or
 [032] borough, correction will likewise belong to the king.]12 [or] outside

Notes

1. Unidentified

2-3. Inst. 4.15.6: ‘is qui deiecit cogitur ei restituere possessionem licet is ab eo qui videiecit vi vel clam vel precario possidebat’

4-5. D. 43.16.1.30: ‘Qui a me vi possidebat, si ab alio deiciatur, habet interdictum.’

6. ‘Erit,’ in preceding line, for ‘heredis’

7. Supra 76

8. Supra 121, infra 148

9. Rubric opposite erroneous; see infra 152

10. Supra 33, 84, 124

11. Supra ii, 40, 57, 137, iii, 40, 60, 128

12. Supra 61; om: ‘Si autem . . . universitatis,’ a connective

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