Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 137

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 137

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] it, which is dedicated to some common use; that will be a trespass, not a disseisin,¹
[002] and let judgment be given [as above.]

An exception is given the tenant if there is an error in the name of the vill.

[004] An exception arising out of the name of the vill is given a tenant against a plaintiff,
[005] [The writ says ‘of his free tenement in such a vill,’ and² though there is no error as to
[006] the name,³ one may err nonetheless, as where he believes the tenement to be in one
[007] county or in one vill, when it is in another county and another vill. Also because he
[008] thinks a single mansio is a vill when it is not, Hence we must see what a mansio is and
[009] what a vill. It is clear that⁴ by the jus gentium boundaries were set to holdings, buildings
[010] were erected next to one another, from which cities and vills were formed,⁵ of
[011] several edifices taken together and joined, not of a single erected edifice,⁶ as where
[012] one constructs a single edifice in the fields, there will there be no vill. But when in the
[013] process of time several edifices begin to be joined and to form a neighbourhood, a vill
[014] begins to exist. Thus there may [then] be a tenement in such vill, but not before, and
[015] yet the vill to which the field formerly belonged does not cease to be a vill but both
[016] stand in their own names. Thus the vill last formed has its boundaries and its own
[017] proper tenements, but they are not so in the one that they are not in the other, the
[018] one first formed, [and], consideration being given to priority, because that which is
[019] first is of greater dignity, a tenement may thus be in one vill and also in the other,
[020] ⁷<A tenement must be so in one vill that it is not in another, as where it is in the vill
[021] formed earlier, thus only in one and not in the other. If it is in the vill founded subsequently
[022] it may be in both, or in one of them alone.> but not conversely, for that which
[023] is in the vill first formed will not be in the vill founded subsequently, thus in one but
[024] not the other, by reason of and by the privilege of priority. But the tenement in the
[025] vill subsequently formed and founded will be contained in the vill established earlier,
[026] and thus a tenement may be in both, or so in one that it is not in the other, whether
[027] it is different counties, different fees or⁸ different demesnes that are in question. A
[028] tenement may be in one vill and in the other, but we must distinguish how much in
[029] one and how much in the other. If the whole is in one of two, but there is doubt as to
[030] which, and the plaintiff names both in his writ, saying that it is in such a vill and in
[031] such, it does not suffice, according to some, if he proves that the tenement is in one,
[032] not unless he proves it to be in both, and if he fails that the assise falls completely,

Notes

1. Supra 40, 128, 130

2. ‘et’

3. ‘nomine’

4-5. Azo, Summa Inst. 1.2, no. 7; supra ii, 28; Barton in Tulane L. Rev., xlii, 577

6. Infra iv, 349-50

7. Supra i, 399

8. ‘vel’