Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 82

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 82

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] the writ cannot be brought together in one place. Thus what is not found here may be
[002] found there.]¹

The exception where the writ has been lost.

[004] What shall we say if the original writ has been lost through someone's negligence or
[005] lack of care?² We then must see whether it has ever been read and heard in court before
[006] the justices. If so, the justices may well proceed, provided it was in the presence
[007] of the parties.³ And so if it was entered on the roll after the view claimed or a warrantor
[008] vouched.⁴ But what if it was never heard or read before the justices, [and they
[009] have] only the writ warranting the taking of the assise?⁵ Since all the clauses of the
[010] original writ are there contained and sometimes the names of all the disseisors, the
[011] assise may well proceed on such a writ, provided the sheriff acknowledges that he received
[012] the original writ,⁶ because the king bears witness in his letters patent that such
[013] a one has arraigned an assise against such a one concerning such a tenement in such a
[014] vill, so that all the clauses of the writ are contained in it, which the king attests.⁷ But
[015] what if it is an open writ patent and the seal has been completely broken or the tie
[016] torn. No reliance is to be placed in such a writ. And so if it is wholly false, as where a
[017] counterfeit seal has been appended,⁸ or if [the writ] is wholly false, not in agreement
[018] with the style of the chancery.⁹ If one uses a writ of this kind and is convicted of it, let
[019] him be punished [as above, [in the portion] on the crime of lese majesty,]¹⁰ unless he
[020] has a warrantor who avows the writ. ¹¹Among other matters we must see when a writ
[021] impetrated against a predecessor ought to bind a successor, whether in a possessory
[022] or a proprietary action, as where an abbot or prior commits a disseisin and then is
[023] removed or deposed (remaining in the same house or another) or dies. We must then
[024] see whether it was impetrated against him¹² immediately after the disseisin, before
[025] deposition or removal or after, and then whether the writ runs both in his own name
[026] and the title of his dignity or only in the name of his dignity. But whether it is one or
[027] the other, by the writ impetrated he is¹³ always bound to answer as long as he is alive,
[028] no matter where he may be whether another has been substituted or not,¹⁴ because
[029] the injuria is personal, and though an abbot has been deposed or removed after an
[030] injuria, the punishment is not thereby abolished because of his change of dignity or
[031] office, since the injuria, which is personal and follows the person, still remains. If he
[032] was deposed before impetration, we must then see whether another abbot was
[033] created before impetration or after. If before,

Notes

1. Infra iv, 245; iv, 180

2. ‘incuriam’; Drogheda, 351: ‘Quaeritur si rescriptum fuerit impetratum . . . et postea sit deperditum, an iudex hoc [non] obstante debet procedere’

3. Infra 142

4. B.N.B., no. 1552

5. Om: ‘Videtur . . . procedendum,’ redundant

6. B.N.B., no. 1553; om: ‘et’

7. Infra 259

8. Supra 78

9. Ibid; B.N.B., no. 1847

10. Supra ii, 335, 337, iii, 78

11. New section

12. ‘eum’

13. ‘tenetur,’ and in the singular throughout

14. ‘cum res . . . abbatis,’ transposed infra 83, nn. 2-3