Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 376

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 376

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] When an inquest of this kind is sent to court christian to be taken and the marriage
[002] has been satisfactorily proved, and when the woman is on her way [back] to the
[003] court with the inquest an impediment supervenes, such as war or the like, so that the
[004] judgment cannot be put into effect, and before she comes to the court the tenant
[005] dies, in the war perhaps, and after the war the woman sues a new writ against the
[006] heir or other tenant, if it is then attested that she did so prove her marriage in the
[007] lifetime of the [tenant] who died, and was so hindered by the war, she will recover
[008] her seisin without further proof, as [in the roll] of the eyre of the bishop of Durham
[009] and Martin of Pateshull in the county of York in the third year of king Henry,
[010] [the case] of Muriel the wife of Hugh de Hammerton.¹ By analogy it appears that if a
[011] woman claims someone as her husband and the decision is in her favour and not
[012] appealed, if the man dies before the judgment is put into effect she will obtain dower
[013] without further proof.

If it is said that wherever she was married no dower was ever constituted for her, or that it was not constituted at the church door.

[015] In his exception the tenant may acknowledge that she was married at the church
[016] door or elsewhere, but say that dower was never constituted her. If the woman
[017] disputes this, the inquest must not be taken in court christian but in the king's
[018] court. He may acknowledge that she was married and that dower was constituted,
[019] but that it was not done at the church door on the marriage day; [in which case let
[020] the inquest also be taken in the king's court, for it will no more be entrusted to an
[021] ecclesiastical judge than will an inquest of bastardy where the objection is raised in
[022] this way, namely, whether he was born before marriage or after.] And that a woman
[023] cannot claim dower if she has not been endowed at the church door, if that objection
[024] is raised against her in an action of dower, is proved in the eyre of William of Ralegh
[025] in the county of Buckingham, [the case] of Avice who was the wife of Baldwin,²
[026] for if, in a claim of dower she omits these words, ‘and whereof such a one, my husband,
[027] endowed me at the church door,’ she will lose her dower without further hope
[028] of recovery. To the same intent [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the eighth and the
[029] beginning of the ninth years of king Henry in the county of Hertford [the case] of
[030] Alice the wife of Roger de Chaure.³ To the same intent in the same county of Buckingham,
[031] [the case] of Isabella the wife of Robert.⁴ And similarly [in the roll] of
[032] Michaelmas term in the ninth and the beginning of the tenth years of king Henry
[033] in the county of Oxford, [the case] of Alice the wife of James de Cardeville⁵ where the
[034] judgment

Notes

1. Selden Soc. vol. 56, no. 296; introduction, p. xiv

2. Not in B.N.B.; roll extant

3. B.N.B., no. 891; C.R.R., xi, no. 2032 (sidelined)

4. Not in B.N.B.; supra n. 2

5. B.N.B., no. 1669; C.R.R., xii, no. 705. The words ‘De dote’ written above entry