[001] rights are claimed, as a right of advowson which is among the appurtenances of some [002] corporeal thing, for there can be no rights without bodies. [Sometimes a right of [003] advowson is claimed by itself, with its appurtenances, sometimes with the body, that [004] is, with the thing itself, when it is among the appurtenances of the thing.]
The exception that he holds nothing therof.
[006] When the demandant says in his intentio ‘I claim against such a one so much land [007] with the appurtenances etc.,’ the tenant may sometimes except against his claim [008] that he holds nothing thereof nor ever held any part of it. If the demandant cannot [009] deny this the writ falls, together with the action, [that is], when the tenant tells the [010] truth. But if he says that he holds nothing when in truth he holds the whole and puts [011] himself upon an inquest, if the tenant is proved to be a liar by the inquest he will lose [012] the thing claimed because of his lie.1 How and by what writ the inquest ought to be [013] made will be explained below; nor will there here be opportunity for a wager, unless [014] both parties agree thereto ex abundanti. If the tenant excepts thus, by saying that he [015] holds nothing but another does, if he is found to be a liar he loses what he holds [016] because of the lie, without wager. If he acknowledges that he holds the thing but [017] not the whole, because another [holds] part of the thing itself or its appurtenances, [018] if he is convicted of a lie by the inquest he does not on that account lose the thing, [019] either the whole or part, nor is his lie punished as in the previous case, but the plea [020] proceeds against the tenant that he answer for the whole, unless something else is [021] introduced by common consent, [as] a wager. And what is said of a body may be [022] said of its appurtenances, according as he holds the whole or part or nothing.
One may acknowledge that he once held the thing claimed but does not now hold it; we therefore must see when he ceased to possess.
[024] He may also answer and acknowledge that he once held the thing sought but does [025] not now hold it; in that case we must see when he possessed and when he ceased to [026] possess. One may cease to possess fraudulently, lest an action be brought against him, [027] or do so in good faith. Hence we must see whether he ceased to possess before impetration [028] of the writ or afterwards. If before, he is not guilty of dolus, since he has no [029] choice as to when he must answer, though the demandant may decide when he wishes [030] to sue. Nor is he guilty of dolus though
Volume 4, Page 343
Next