Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 218

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 218

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] the ancestor presented rightfully, but that he can no longer present, for the aforesaid
[002] reason. We must first see whether he against whom the exception is raised is of
[003] full age or within age. If of full age, he may well acknowledge the charter and the
[004] gift, but replicate against the exception that after that charter he presented one N.,
[005] who was admitted on his presentation, and that therefore the charter is empty and
[006] the gift a nullity.¹ This he may prove by the assise taken not in the manner of an
[007] assise but of a jury, unless the impediant² has a triplicatio on his own behalf, as where
[008] he says that though the charter is empty and the gift a nullity because of the donor's
[009] second presentation, nevertheless after the presentation he or³ his ancestor made
[010] him another charter and a new gift,⁴ so that the presentation belongs to him, or he
[011] may say that he confirmed the first charter, making valid by confirmation what was
[012] made invalid by non-use and the second presentation, and let him offer to prove this
[013] by the assise and by the witnesses named in the charter, if the other simply denies
[014] the charter or⁵ the confirmation, unless the other wishes to quadruplicate and show
[015] that he presented after all this had occurred. If the impediant wishes to triplicate in
[016] this way, to acknowledge that a presentation was made after the first charter and
[017] that the charter thus was empty, but that afterwards he impetrated a writ of warrantia
[018] carta against him, to which he (or his ancestor) was summoned, who acknowledged
[019] that charter and gift in court, so that a fine was made and a chirograph, which⁶
[020] he produces [and] which witnesses that the aforesaid, such a one, acknowledged that
[021] the aforesaid advowson was his right as that which he had of his gift, to that the reply
[022] may be made that the fine and chirograph ought not to harm him because⁷ it is
[023] wholly dependent upon an imperfect gift, since he who puts forward the chirograph
[024] had no seisin, and therefore, since the charter is empty and the gift imperfect for lack
[025] of seisin, he therefore demands judgment, because when the principal thing, the gift,
[026] is not valid, the things which follow from and depend upon it ought not to be valid,
[027] that is, neither the fine nor chirograph.⁸ Suppose that one gives a manor with the
[028] advowson to another in fee, to him and his heirs, and before the church falls vacant
[029] he to whom it was given, before the church falls vacant and before he presents, transfers
[030] the manor with the appurtenances to another; the church then first falls vacant
[031] and the first

Notes

1. Cf. infra 220, 226

2. ‘impediens’

3. ‘vel’

4. ‘et donationem novam’; supra ii, 175

5. ‘vel’

6. ‘quoddam quod’

7. Om: ‘idem talis . . . et quod’

8. Supra ii, 175-6