Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 223

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 223

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] who is admitted on his presentation; another then intervenes and, after the clerk has
[002] been instituted, raises a dispute and disturbs the first presentor by presenting another
[003] clerk; it is then agreed between them that he who raised the question shall
[004] present the instituted clerk for a second time, de facto, to the bishop, who admits him
[005] [on his presentation] to the prejudice of the first presentor. If in this way such parson
[006] remains all his life twice presented and twice instituted, and, when the church becomes
[007] vacant, he who last presented wishes to sue by the assise on the strength of
[008] that presentation, he will not be heard, because a presentation made on a presentation,
[009] of the same thing and the same parson,¹ will be valueless, as [in the roll] of
[010] Easter term in the ninth year of king Henry in the county of Norfolk, an assise of
[011] darrein presentment between Matilda of Rochford and Robert of Tumeston, concerning
[012] the church of Tumeston.² Suppose that one presents to a vacant church and
[013] while the presentation is pending, before the clerk is admitted, the presentor dies,
[014] and after his death, by reason of the wardship [of his heir], the guardian presents
[015] another clerk; during the dispute between the clerk presented by the patron and the
[016] guardian, the heir comes of age and presents a third clerk, or approves the first presentation
[017] made by his ancestor: we must see whose presentation must be preferred.
[018] It is clear that it is the heir's presentation, not the guardian's nor even the ancestor's,
[019] for the last presentation is preferred. On this matter may be found in the eyre of the
[020] abbot of Reading and Martin of Pateshull in the county of Worcester, an assise of
[021] darrein presentment concerning the church of St. Mary of Droitwich.³ There is
[022] another case in the eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Kent, between the
[023] prior of Lewes and William of Abervile, concerning the church of Stokenbury,⁴ where
[024] the same prior arraigned an assise of darrein presentment against the same William
[025] and the same William admitted the presentation of the same prior, but said that it
[026] was made at a time when his father was under age and in the wardship of the archbishop
[027] of Canterbury, that is, in the wardship of someone other than the same prior
[028] who had laid the complaint. And hence, because he admitted the presentation of the
[029] prior, who was not his guardian, and that his father was in the wardship of someone
[030] other than the prior, the prior withdrew quit in his seisin, saving to William the
[031] question on the property. Suppose that an entire manor, with the advowson of the
[032] church and the other appurtenances, is given to farm to the parson of the same
[033] manor; in that case the church cannot be conferred before it becomes vacant and it
[034] cannot become vacant except by the death

Notes

1. ‘persona’; infra 225

2. B.N.B., no. 1072; roll extant

3. Selden Soc. vol. 53, no. 1271; not in B.N.B.

4. Not in B.N.B.