Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 24

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 24

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] invokes the aid of the law who commits an offence against it.¹ For the law offered
[002] itself freely to him and he, refusing it, used force instead of law. Therefore it will not
[003] help him, for [if] when he could he would not, when he will he may not. And so the
[004] minister of the law shall answer him, whose jurisdiction he has unlawfully usurped
[005] to himself. Suppose the disseisor, when he has committed the disseisin, at once transfers
[006] the [land] to another, on the same day or the next, by force of some causa; may
[007] he to whom the thing was transferred be at once ejected by the disseised true lord?
[008] [He may be], as may the first and principal disseisor, because the true lord always
[009] retained civil possession though he had lost natural. And so if he wishes to sue by the
[010] assise of novel disseisin, he will recover against both, because each disseised him as
[011] principal, that is, the first took natural possession from him, the second civil, and
[012] both conjoined, [the first] and the second together, deprived him of both. Hence
[013] neither shall answer without the other.² But one, that is, the first, is liable only for
[014] the penalty, not to restitution, since he has nothing to restore. The second is liable
[015] for both, the penalty and restitution:³ to a penalty because he took civil possession,
[016] and to restitution because he has the thing which must be restored. It is otherwise
[017] if the thing is transferred long after the disseisin, before the impetration of a writ;
[018] there the first and principal disseisor only is held to the penalty, because of the injuria,
[019] and he to whom it was transferred after an interval only to restitution, in accordance
[020] with the nature of the assise, as will be explained below.⁴ Suppose that after
[021] the disseisin the first disseisor is at once disseised by another; may the true lord, if he
[022] so wishes, at once eject the second disseisor? [He may], but not after an interval of
[023] time, for the reason aforesaid. And so if he wishes to proceed by the assise, he may
[024] bring it against both and recover against both. If he [the true lord] allows time to
[025] pass without acting, may the first disseisor, if he wishes to proceed by the assise,
[026] recover against his disseisor? [He may]. He could also at the outset eject him at once,
[027] [as below [in the portion] on transfers, where there is more of this matter,]⁵ without
[028] any opportunity for re-entry on the part of the second disseisor. In connexion with
[029] immediate re-ejection, it may be asked whether the sheriff ought to intervene. It is
[030] submitted, though some take a contrary view, that he may, but within a certain
[031] time, not at any time, nor ought he to interfere ex officio unless the disseisee requests
[032] his intervention, for if he does he falls into the assise.⁶ When his help is asked, the
[033] sheriff ought to see whether the force for which he is needed is rightful or wrongful. If
[034] wrongful, let him not interfere at anyone's instigation, lest he fall into the assise, as
[035] where one has wrongfully disseised another and the disseisee makes an immediate
[036] attempt to re-eject his disseisor; if the sheriff curbs the force of the disseisee, which
[037] is lawful, and

Notes

1. X.5.19.14: ‘frustra legis auxilium invocat qui committit in legem’

2. Infra 26, 48

3. Infra 41, 48

4. Infra 41, 48-9

5. Infra 47, 48

6. Infra 193