Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 2, Page 260

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 2, Page 260

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] of a person, but they will not all obtain it since marriage does not admit of division.
[002] It is requisite, therefore, of necessity, that one be preferred to the others, as was
[003] said above.¹

When a marriage is claimed it is important to determine who is in seisin of the heir, one of the lords or a stranger.

[005] When the marriage of an heir is claimed by one or several, it is of importance to
[006] know who is in seisin, whether one who has no right, as a mother or other near
[007] relative or a stranger, or one of the several chief lords who have right. If it is he who
[008] has no right and the marriage is sought from him by some chief lord, by one, that
[009] is, he will either admit that he has [the heir] or deny it. If he denies it, let proceedings
[010] be taken against him,² [as will be explained below in the tractate on actions.]³
[011] If he admits that he has him, [though] the lord who claims is one of several, on his
[012] proof that the heir's ancestor held of him by military service the tenant must restore
[013] the heir or show cause why he ought not to do so. For it does not suffice if he says that
[014] some other lord has a greater right in the marriage, for that exception will not lie in
[015] the tenant's mouth. But when several persons who allege they have a right in the
[016] marriage claim it from one who has no right, though he acknowledges that he has
[017] the heir he is not obliged to restore him⁴ to any of them until the rights of the
[018] claimants are settled, which of them is to be preferred to the others. He will be
[019] instructed to keep the heir safely until the truth is established and the heir will be
[020] restored to him who has priority of feoffment and the greater right. If which of the
[021] claimants has the greater right cannot be determined by proof, seisin on that
[022] account will not remain with him who has no right but will be transferred to the
[023] claimants, since they prove that they have right. But it remains to ascertain
[024] whether it ought to remain entirely to one of them, he to satisfy the other to the
[025] extent of half its value, or to one completely with no need to offer compensation,
[026] since marriage does not admit of division. It is submitted that it ought to remain
[027] wholly to one without any payment of the half value if it can be proved which one
[028] of them was last in seisin. If not, proof being completely lacking, it is submitted
[029] that he who first began the action ought to be preferred. For suppose one of the
[030] several chief lords who have⁵ right in the marriage is in seisin and one or several
[031] claim the marriage; he who holds will remain in seisin until it is decided which of
[032] them has the greater right

Notes

1. Continued infra 261, n. 2

2. Deleted

3. Not dealt with as such in treatise

4. ‘heredem’

5. ‘habent’; ‘habet,’ OC, MG, V