Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 159

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 159

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] the same two remedies lie for the heir, as above: [mortdancestor], because in both
[002] cases the ancestor dies sufficiently seised as of fee,¹ and a writ of entry without the
[003] clause,² since nothing can be imputed to the ancestor's negligence.³ But if he is
[004] found negligent, that he did not sue when he could,⁴ as one unmindful of his right⁵ he
[005] prejudices himself and his heirs, since negligence and acquiescence imply consent and
[006] long dissimulation nullifies an injuria,⁶ and the prejudice will be such that the heir
[007] may scarcely be heard on the property by writ of right. When the disseisee has been
[008] diligent, as was said above, or when nothing may be imputed to his negligence, an
[009] action is given his heir by a ‘breve formatum’ in this way, against the heir of the
[010] disseisor.⁷

Writ.

[012] ‘The king to the sheriff, greeting. Order A. to restore to B. rightfully etc. so much
[013] land with the appurtenances in such a vill in which he has no entry except through C.
[014] father of the said A., whose heir he is, who disseised the aforesaid B. thereof wrongfully
[015] and without judgment, after the first etc.,⁸ as to which an assise of novel disseisin
[016] was summoned before our justices at the first etc. and a view made of the land,
[017] but the taking of the assise remained because the aforesaid C. died before the taking
[018] of that assise (or ‘before our justices came into those parts’).⁹ And unless he does so,
[019] and [if] the said B. has made you secure with respect to prosecuting his claim etc.,
[020] then summon etc. that he be before our justices etc. to show why he has not done so.
[021] And have there the summoners and this writ.’ This writ will lie against strangers who
[022] have entered through a disseisor, one or several, as far as the degrees of entry and
[023] the persons permit, as well as against the heirs of the disseisor or those who have
[024] their entry through the heirs,¹⁰ as far as the third person inclusively, as where it is
[025] said ‘Order A. to restore to B. rightfully etc. so much land with the appurtenances in
[026] such a vill in which he has no entry except through C., son and heir of D., who demised
[027] that land to him after the said D. had wrongfully and without judgment disseised
[028] the same B.’ Or if the disseisee is dead and his heir claims against [one who has his
[029] entry through] the heir of the disseisor, then thus, ‘Order A. that rightfully etc. he
[030] restore to B. so much land with the appurtenances in such a vill in which he has no
[031] entry except through C. son and heir of D. who demised that land to him after the
[032] same D. had wrongfully and without judgment disseised E., father¹¹ (or ‘uncle’ or
[033] ‘aunt’ or other ancestor) of the same B., whose heir he is, as he says.’ ¹²<If one disseises
[034] a disseisor and afterward transfers the thing to another, it cannot then be said
[035] that the first disseisor demised it to him. Therefore let it be put in this way, ‘in which
[036] he [A.] has no

Notes

1. Infra 201, 270

2. Infra 200

3. Supra 157, infra 174

4. ‘posset’

5. C. 7.40.3.3: supra 47

6. Inst. 4.4.12: supra ii, 439

7. The first writ is for the disseisee, not his heir: Hall in Tulane L. Rev., xlii, 596

8. ‘post primam etc.’ as infra 343

9. Hall, pp. 597, 598-9

10. Selden Soc. vol. 80, cxxxiv-cxxxvii

11. Om: ‘ipsius B’

12. Supra i, 400