the inheritance of his father or mother, whichever is innocent of the felony.12[And  to what has been said, that a gift is good if [the donor] dies before he has been convicted,  3because he who is guilty of the crime having died, punishment is extinguished.]4
He forfeits nothing before he has been convicted.
 [But he forfeits nothing until he has been convicted or condemned, 5because a lex6  states that gifts made after the commission of a capital crime are valid unless  condemnation follows. And what was properly done before the crime committed  ought not to be invalidated, [for] as another lex7 states, what has been properly done  cannot be destroyed or altered by a supervening offence.]8 If a son and nearer heir  commits a felony during his father's lifetime and survives him and is convicted, 9he  forfeits [for himself and] his heirs, near and remote, his own property, that is, whatever  he held when the felony was committed, no matter how he held it and as he held  it.10 [And], whether he has seisin of the inheritance or not, since the mere right has  descended to him, he forfeits [that] for himself and the succession for his heirs, so  that, since the right cannot descend to heirs, it reverts of necessity to the chief lord,  the feoffor.
That the land of a felon may revert to the chief lords for lack of heirs because it came from them.
 And [thus], though he does not have seisin, the seisin of the felon's ancestor will not  descend to heirs, because it must follow the chief lord to whom the right reverts.11  But if, whether he has been convicted or not, he dies in his father's lifetime, his  younger brother at once begins to be nearer heir to the common father, as though  the older brother had not committed felony, because [since] no right descended to  him during his father's lifetime it will be as though he had never been born.12  13<So it seems to some, but to others the contrary seems true, who say that when he  commits felony during the lifetime of his ancestor and is convicted of it, he forfeits  not only what he holds, for himself and his heirs, but whatever could for any  reason fall to him from any of his ancestors, and not only does he forfeit it for the  heirs of his body but for those more remote, brothers and others, because the count  of the descent must always be made through him if the right is sought by writ.14  This was the opinion of William of York, and it is sound.>15
But what shall be said of a wife's inheritance when her husband has been outlawed; is it to be restored at once?
 But what shall be said of a wife who has an inheritance, when her husband
1. Leg. Edw. Confess., 19.2: Liebermann, i, 645: pro malefacto post generationem eorum peracto, nec perdant hereditatem