Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 377  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] [[or] if he cannot defend himself by the country, show that the cause of his outlawry
[002] is void by producing the man who was alleged to be slain,] otherwise he will
[003] suffer judgment, or if he refuses the country, be taken as convicted so that
[004] he cannot remain in the realm. Should the king keep him within the realm it would
[005] be a wrong to the appellor. But if no one has sued against him properly from the
[006] beginning and there is no one who may [now] have an appeal, the inlaw may then
[007] remain in the realm in the king's peace.

Where the eldest of several sons commits felony in his father's lifetime and is outlawed in his father's lifetime.


[009] 1Suppose that a father has several sons and the eldest has committed felony and
[010] been outlawed in his father's lifetime. After the father's death we must see to
[011] whom the right and the inheritance ought to descend. Clearly not to the outlawed
[012] son, since by the outlawry he forfeited his right to succeed [not only to property
[013] acquired but to be acquired,] [and] though he was restored2 [to the peace] he is not
[014] therefore restored to the succession, for that, as is evident, would be to the prejudice
[015] of the chief lord, which ought not to be.3 But if he had died in his father's
[016] lifetime without an heir [of his body], then some think that the inheritance would
[017] descend to other nearer heirs as though he had never been in existence,4 which is
[018] not true according to others, whose opinion on such matters carries greater weight,5
[019] for when the eldest dies in his father's or other ancestor's lifetime he forfeits,
[020] whether he has been inlawed or not, for all his heirs, present and future, existing
[021] or though not yet existing, near and remote, brothers and sisters, and those issuing
[022] from his body, the entire right he had on the day the felony was committed or
[023] which might fall to him from some ancestor had he survived that ancestor and not
[024] committed the felony, [for those] who, on the death of the ancestor would be his
[025] future heirs if the right had descended to him, for if he had died in the king's peace
[026] without having committed felony it would be essential, [since] a degree is vacant
[027] though his death,6 to make mention of him in any descent to heirs issuing from his
[028] body, in this form: ‘and whence, from such ancestor, the right ought to have
[029] descended to such a one as son and heir had he lived, and from such a one to such
[030] a one as his son and heir,’ which must [also] be said in the case of brothers and sisters
[031] and other more remote heirs if he has no children of his own. Thus it cannot
[032] be said that the right descends directly from the ancestor to the grandson or granddaughter,
[033] brother or sister, or more remote heir, no mention being made of him
[034] who died during the ancestor's lifetime. Thus, whether he dies during the life of his
[035] ancestor or after his death, whether he is an outlaw or has been restored to the
[036] peace in his ancestor's lifetime, he who committed the felony forfeits his action and
[037] the right, had or to be had. Also his own inheritance,



Notes

1. Supra 367, infra iii, 306-7

2. ‘cum esset restitutus,’ from line 16

3. Supra 375, 376; Glanvill vii, 17

4. Supra 367, infra iii, 306-7

5. Supra 198, 367, infra iii, 297, iv, 173, 174, 310

6. ‘[cum] gradus vacuus sit per mortem suam,’ from line 26


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