Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 24

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 24

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] by the duel.¹ For he may deny such entry and say that he has no entry by the person
[002] named [B.], because before he had anything therein the tenant was seised through
[003] another, such a one, so that he had no entry through the aforesaid grandmother as the
[004] demandant says, and it may come² to an inquest as to the entry if the time limit permits,³
[005] by these words, namely, ‘if the aforesaid tenant had any right or entry in the
[006] said land other than through such a one etc. [B.], who demised that land to him from
[007] the inheritance of such a one [C.], the wife of such a one etc. or [if he entered] in any
[008] other way whatsoever etc.’⁴ That a writ of entry is turned into a writ of right where
[009] against the entry for a term a feoffment is objected, just as it is because of a distant
[010] entry, may be seen in the eyre of William of Ralegh in the county of Northampton,
[011] [the case] of Peter of Goldington,⁵ who claimed land against William of Bretun by a
[012] writ of entry, where William denied such entry and said that he had his entry through
[013] the ancestor on whose seisin the same Peter claimed that land, who enfeoffed him of it
[014] to hold for his homage and service, and that it was his right by the feoffment and not
[015] by such entry he put himself on the grand assise, and the assise proceeded, because he
[016] claimed to hold by feoffment, by these words, namely, whether he had a greater right
[017] in that land, as in land which Peter's aforesaid ancestor gave him for his homage and
[018] service, than the same Peter had for holding it in demesne. To the same intent [in the
[019] roll] of Easter term in the fourteenth year [of king Henry, the case] of Ralph de
[020] Moigne,⁶ because the tenant spoke of the feoffment of ancestors of the demandant
[021] fifty years before, where, [because] it exceeded the limitation in the assise of mortdancestor,
[022] it at once ceased to be a writ of entry because of the very distant entry,
[023] [except of necessity, as below.]⁷ ⁸<On this matter may be found in the roll of Trinity
[024] term in the fourth year of king Henry in the county of York, [the case] of Peter de
[025] Malo Lacu and Isabella his wife, demandants, and the prior of St. Oswald, tenant.>⁹
[026] If the tenant does not appear, in person or by attorney, let the land be taken into the
[027] hand of the lord king by the great cape which is this [as below [in the portion] on the
[028] real action, where the writ appears.]¹⁰ If he defaults again,

Notes

1. Om: ‘Ponere . . . verba’

2. ‘pervenire’

3. Not a new sentence

4. Om: ‘vel qui . . . etc.’; C.R.R., ix, 16 (supra 23): ‘ad recognoscendum si ipsi aliud jus vel alium ingressum habuerint nisi per Robertum de Turnham, qui illam eis dimisit de hereditate Johanna uxoris ejus etc.’; infra 25, 28

5. Not in B.N.B.; cf. no. 323

6. B.N.B., no. 402; no roll extant

7. Infra 44

8. Supra i, 410; belongs supra 23 at no. 5

9. C.R.R., ix, 16; not in B.N.B.

10. Infra 149