Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 140  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] by a new grant without1 livery, change [the possessor's] causa possidendi, as was
[002] said above,2 as where, having first granted a usufruct for a term he may grant his
[003] tenant a free tenement, without livery, by force of a new causa. If at first [it was]
[004] for a term of life and as a free tenement, he may change the causa to one in fee,3 but
[005] it would be completely worthless if he transferred the same thing a second time by
[006] the same causa, since by the first transfer he completely ceased to possess.[If one is in
[007] possession of a thing, his own or another's, and it is claimed against him, he may
[008] acknowledge it to be the right of the demandant and remit it completely, to hold of
[009] himself and his heirs, or of another,4 as is explained below [in the portion on] final
[010] concords.]5 6One may cease to possess and the other begin by his own act or by
[011] another's.7 And by lapse of time as well as animo and corpore:8 [as below [in the
[012] portion on] the assise,]9 by lapse of time, as where, when one is present, by negligence;
[013] if absent, by forgetfulness. A long absence, as ten years or longer, brings about
[014] forgetfulness.10

In what ways possession may be lost.

[016] When possession has once been acquired it may be lost in many ways. Let us see,
[017] therefore, in what ways it may be lost. It is clear that it may be lost by the same
[018] means by which it is acquired. Acquired neither corpore only nor animo only but
[019] by both (though it may be retained animo without corpore) it cannot be lost without
[020] both, that is animo and corpore, for it is retained animo without corpore and corpore
[021] without animo and [only] when both fail is it wholly lost.11 How it may be restored
[022] when lost without the possessor's consent will be adequately explained below [in
[023] the portion on] the assise of novel disseisin.12

Whether he to whom a thing is given may give the thing given to another.13

[025] We must see whether he to whom a thing has been given may give the thing
[026] over without prejudice to the chief lords. It seems clear that he may, for if he
[027] makes a gift over, though the chief lord suffers damage thereby no wrong is done
[028] him, for not every damage supposes injuria, but conversely, every injuria damage.
[029] [An injuria may be said to be anything wrongfully done,14 and from such an
[030] action arises for remedying the wrong, that which was wrongfully done, but where
[031] there is damnum absque injuria no action arises for remedying the harmful act by
[032] which the damage is caused]. It would be otherwise if15 one could say that when the
[033] donee gives the thing over to others


1. ‘sine’

2. Supra 104, 126, 128

3. Supra 104

4. Supra 108

5. No portion on final concords in the treatise

6. New paragraph

7. Infra 154

8. Infra 156

9. Infra iii, 133

10. Azo, Summa Inst. 2.6, no. 2: ‘longa absentia potest esse causa oblivionis ut ita per oblivionem quae inducitur ex longa absentia amittatur possessio.’

11. Supra 122, 130; repeated infra 154

12. Infra iii, 25

13. ‘datum est rem, rem datam’

14. Inst. 4.4.pr.; D. 47.10.2.pr.; infra 289, 437

15. ‘Secus si’

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College