Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 2, Page 224

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 2, Page 224

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] No. For she has the choice of contributing it or not.] ¹out of the common inheritance
[002] of the father or mother which ought to be divided among the co-heiresses, whether
[003] the inheritance has descended or is an acquisition, for an acquisition like an inheritance
[004] descends to heirs. And that a maritagium falls into the pot you [may see]
[005] in the roll of the first pleas after the war, in the county of Essex, [the case] of H. de
[006] Abecot and her parceners by writ of qui nuper obiit concerning the shares of sisters.²
[007] And what if a mother in her liege widowhood gives one of her several daughters
[008] her whole maritagium? What was said above will still apply. If the father or mother,
[009] or both, give their whole inheritance [to one daughter] in maritagium nothing falls
[010] into the pot, since nothing remains to be divided among the co-heiresses. But when
[011] homage has been done, after the entry of the third heir or before, partition being
[012] made, the maritagium still falls into the pot as before, [because] that being
[013] reckoned as the share of the one who holds it, by³ the homage the other is supplied
[014] with what she lacks of the common inheritance. But what if the father or mother
[015] enfeoffs one of the co-heiresses absolutely, for homage and service, no mention
[016] made of maritagium? Quaere whether the feoffment falls into the distribution as a
[017] maritagium does? Whatever others may say, [it is clear that it does not], [It is
[018] clear that it does not because, though it is said that a maritagium falls into the pot
[019] [and] it may as easily be said that a feoffment should do so, such a statement is never
[020] made.⁴ And that a maritagium but not a feoffment ought to fall into the distribution
[021] is clear prima facie, for a maritagium may revert and remain with the feoffor or
[022] his heirs, and be divided among co-heiresses, since homage has not been done,⁵
[023] though that is not true of an absolute feoffment, because of the homage, because they
[024] would thus be, so to speak, lords and heirs.]⁶ unless the matter is treated as
[025] above, unless the feoffment is reckoned to the feoffee [and the homage to her
[026] parceners]. But what if the parcener is enfeoffed for service only, without homage,
[027] or for homage and service but to hold of the chief lord?⁷ If a gift is made to a
[028] husband and wife together [and their heirs, but not] in maritagium, it will still
[029] be a maritagium and fall into the pot.⁸ If an absolute gift is made to the husband
[030] without his wife, for his homage and service, to him and his heirs, such a feoffment
[031] does not fall into the

Notes

1. Om: ‘Et sic cadit ... in maritagium,’ a connective

2. Not in B.N.B.; no roll extant; G’terbock, 42 n., 44, 47

3. ‘per’

4. Supra 79; infra 266

5. Supra 77, infra 226

6. Infra 226, 228; Bailey in Camb. L. Jour., ix, 97 n.

7. Supra 110-11

8. As supra 77