Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 82

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 82

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] to others by bail, that they may answer for him, as body for body. Nor does it lie
[002] in the person of one whom the sheriff has been ordered to cause to come, or to have
[003] his body, provided that the formal series of attachments¹ has taken place, though
[004] there has been no essoin. But if it is the first day of attachment an essoin will follow,
[005] because an essoin ought as of right to follow every summons or attachment no matter
[006] in what plea.² But where there is no plea, there is no essoin, as where one orders
[007] his bailiff or sends word that he be present on a certain day to render an account of
[008] his bailiwick, as where the king orders a sheriff or mayor to render an account and
[009] a reckoning of their bailiwick.³ But if the sheriff or the mayor are summoned to
[010] answer by what warrant or by what right they hold their bailiwick, it will be otherwise,
[011] because there will then be a plea. Nor does an essoin lie in the person of him
[012] who has appointed an attorney, unless both essoin themselves.⁴ Nor does it lie in
[013] the person of him who has once essoined himself, until he has appeared. Nor in the
[014] persons of those appealed as accessories⁵ in an appeal touching the peace, blows and
[015] robbery, who are told to remain at home until the principal is convicted. But if they
[016] do not come they are excused by an essoin. Nor does it lie where one of the parties
[017] essoins himself not knowing that his adversary or one of his parceners is dead. Nor
[018] where the plea is void ipso jure, that is, where the writ does not agree with the claim
[019] and the like. Nor does it lie in a personal action after one has been attached, that
[020] is, where he has first essoined himself. Nor where the sheriff is ordered to distrain
[021] by lands and chattels. Nor where a day is given ‘as from day to day,’ or given
[022] without an essoin by consent of the parties, because agreement defeats law,⁶ as [in
[023] the roll] of Michaelmas term in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth
[024] years of king Henry in the county of Essex, [the case] of Otes, son of William,⁷ who
[025] was not allowed an essoin because the day was given without an essoin, because of
[026] the consent, which otherwise would not be [permissible],⁸ [for not even the lord king
[027] himself would have the power of giving a day, though an extended day, without
[028] an essoin (nor a fortiori would anyone else) since he could not do so without acting
[029] contrary to law.] because since he wished it, the benefit of the law does not aid him
[030] against his will, because the benefit would thus be conferred against his will etc.⁹
[031] Nor does it lie if he who essoins himself is seen in court before the essoin is returned.
[032] Nor

Notes

1. ‘attachiamentorum’

2. Infra 90

3. Infra 83, 90

4. Infra 85, 86

5. Om: ‘nec’

6. Supra ii, 68; om: ‘in hoc casu’

7. B.N.B., no. 887; C.R.R., xiv, no. 2399 (sidelined); Hall in E.H.R., lxxix, 155

8. ‘licitum,’ as infra 95

9. D. 50.17.69: ‘Invito beneficium non datur’