Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 262  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] when the feoffors, father and1 mother, die, the heir not yet married, his marriage
[002] will belong to the first feoffor, neither the order nor the priority being changed.
[003] If the fees are to be held immediately of the chief lords the same rule will still have
[004] to be observed, if the feoffments were made simultaneously, for otherwise it would
[005] be impossible to decide which of them was to be preferred in the marriage. But
[006] what if the father and2 mother do not enfeoff the heir at the same time but at
[007] several times, of several fees, to be held of themselves or of the chief lords. If they
[008] are to be held of the chief lords, the first3 order of priority is changed and a new order
[009] based on the new feoffment takes effect. If the fees are to be held of themselves
[010] and their heirs, the old order and priority still holds; it is not changed with respect
[011] to them by the new feoffment and the marriage will belong to them as long as they
[012] live. But when they die, if the heir is not married, since he then falls under the
[013] potestas of the chief lords by reason of succession and not of feoffment, the first order
[014] of priority, changed and altered by the feoffment of the heir, again comes into effect.
[015] What was said of an eldest son and heir applies as well to a younger son, if he happens
[016] to become heir after the feoffment. If he does not, the feoffment [and the marriage]
[017] holds between himself and his warrantor. If the father or mother gives part of the
[018] inheritance to their son and heir, at one time or by successive gifts, and retains part,
[019] what the law ought to be with regard to the marriage may be sufficiently ascertained
[020] from what has been said. If a father and mother [each] possessed of an inheritance
[021] enfeoff the heir, or a younger son, at the same time or successively, of both inheritances,
[022] [to be held of the chief lords], retaining a portion, on their deaths, the son
[023] being within age and unmarried, the part retained will be the first feoffment, when
[024] the heir falls into the hands of his lords, though it was the last with respect to the
[025] ancestors. When they enfeoff their son and heir of both inheritances to be held of
[026] them [the lords] and retain nothing, the fee that was first by the new feoffment will
[027] then have to be preferred and the priority of enfeoffment of the ancestors disregarded.
[028] Suppose they successively enfeoff their younger son to hold of themselves
[029] and their heirs; the marriage of such [son] will belong to them, with no need to
[030] consider priority of enfeoffment so far as they and their heirs are concerned since
[031] there is [but] one feoffor and one heir, unless perchance the younger son becomes heir,
[032] whereupon [the lord] of whose fee such younger son was first enfeoffed is preferred
[033] with respect to the marriage, the new arrangement taking effect to the exclusion of
[034] the old. It would be otherwise if he had been enfeoffed at the same time of both
[035] inheritances completely. In the same way when the heir [A] of the father or mother
[036] of the enfeoffed younger son is a minor and in the wardship of his chief lord, the
[037] parents



Notes

1. ‘et’

2. ‘et’ MG, CM

3. ‘primus,’ as line 14


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