Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 287

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 287

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] with perpetual infamy unless they have a warrantor,¹ as may be found in the eyre of
[002] Martin of Pateshull in the county of York in the tenth year of king Henry, [the case]
[003] of Roger de Farnburne and Agnes his wife,² [where] a genuine seal was appended to a
[004] forged writ by the industry of the forger, and where the same Roger was hanged because
[005] he had no warrantor, but his wife was freed because, whether or not she was
[006] privy to the crime, she was under her husband's rod.³ A writ falls, together with the
[007] action, to the damage of the impetrator, if it is impetrated by a suggestio falsi or a
[008] suppressio veri.⁴ A suggestio falsi, as where one alleges that he is the heir when he is
[009] not, as [in the roll] of Trinity term in the fourth year of king Henry in the county of
[010] Middlesex, [the case] of Hamon Bronde.⁵ And so if one says he holds in fee though he
[011] holds only for a term and the like, or if a woman, when she seeks dower and has part
[012] of it, says she has nothing and so impetrates a writ of dower, and the like. By a
[013] suppressio veri, as where one says that he has his entry by someone other than him
[014] by whom he has entered. Also where [he says] to whom such a one demised, who never
[015] demised, because he had⁶ no seisin, or where he omits some degree in impetrating.
[016] [On this matter may be found among the pleas which follow the lord king Henry in
[017] the thirty-first year, [the case] between Michael abbot of Glastonbury and Roger
[018] bishop of Bath,⁷ in which the same abbot said that bishop Roger had no entry except
[019] by bishop J[oscelin], to whom prior Eustace demised those lands, who never had
[020] seisin of them.] The same may be said of a writ of warantia cartae, where the impetrator
[021] in impetrating says that he holds land which he does not hold, and so impetrates
[022] a writ which he would not have impetrated had he made this clear, and the
[023] like. When a writ is thus tainted in some part, it will not be valid in any, [that is],
[024] with respect to one action, it will be otherwise if there are several actions by reason
[025] of several tenements,⁸ as where one claims a knight's fee in one vill by one writ and
[026] in the same writ claims⁹ another knight's fee,

Notes

1. Supra ii, 338

2. B.N.B., no. 1847

3. Supra ii, 36

4. Drogheda 331, 332

5. C.R.R., ix, 76; not in B.N.B.

6. ‘habuit’

7. Not in B.N.B.; infra 329; Br. became a judge coram rege in 1247

8. ‘tenementorum’

9. Om: ‘versus alium’