Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 307

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 307

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] ought to be made in this way, and ‘whereof such a one was seised as of fee and right,
[002] and from him [the right] descended or ought to descend to such a one, the deceased,’
[003] that is, to him who committed the felony, which may not be.¹ Hence whether the
[004] heir who commits the felony dies [leaving children] in the lifetime of his father or
[005] other ancestor or after his death, the assise falls completely in the person of the other
[006] heirs.² [But the contrary appears [in the roll] of the eyre of William of Ralegh in the
[007] county of Kent, an assise of mortdancestor [beginning] ‘if Athelophus,’³ where it is
[008] said that the ancestor's felony does not bar the seisin of the heir, nor the succession,
[009] if he who commits felony suffers judgment. But this is peculiar to the county of Kent
[010] and to a tenement held in gavelkind; elsewhere the rule is otherwise,⁴ as [in the roll]
[011] of the last eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Lincoln, an assise of mortdancestor
[012] [beginning] ‘if Henry son of Ives,’ concerning a tenement in Scroby.]⁵
[013] ⁶<In the case mentioned above, ⁷ the aforesaid Henry had a son⁸ named William who
[014] forfeited the land of which he was in seisin because he forged the seal of the lord king;
[015] his sisters brought an assise on the death of the ancestor, that is, of their common
[016] father.>

Of several different cases.

[018] Another case. A certain woman claimed a tenement by assise of mortdancestor on the
[019] death of her uncle. Answer was made her by her adversary that she could not claim
[020] because her uncle had a surviving brother who was a nearer heir. She to the contrary,
[021] that her uncle's brother was so disturbed in mind that he had killed a man and was
[022] confined to perpetual imprisonment. Whereupon judgment was sought by the
[023] opposing party as to whether she could claim by the assise during the lifetime of
[024] her uncle. Judgment was adjourned coram rege where no action was taken, perhaps
[025] because the woman did not prosecute, as [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin of Pateshull
[026] in the county of York in the twelfth year of king Henry, an assise of mortdancestor
[027] [beginning], ‘if Odo son of Thorsinus.’⁹ A younger brother claimed land by an
[028] assise of mortdancestor against his eldest brother on the seisin of his middle brother,
[029] because the eldest, though he was a nearer heir, could not be heir and lord, because
[030] the tenement could not remain with him on account of the homage, as [in the roll]
[031] of the eyre of the bishop of Durham and Martin of Pateshull in the county of York
[032] in the third year of king Henry, an assise of mortdancestor [beginning], ‘if Roger de
[033] Amundeville,’¹⁰ where it is said that an assise of

Notes

1. Infra iv, 173, 174

2. Supra ii, 367

3. Not in B.N.B.

4. ‘Sed hoc . . . gavelkinde, quod secus est alibi,’ from lines 8-10

5. Not in B.N.B.

6. Supra i, 405

7. ‘In casu supradicto’

8. ‘filium’

9. B.N.B., no. 1878

10. Notin B.N.B.; not in Selden Soc. vol. 56; supra 295