[these words] are contained in the writ, of [his] free tenement, an exception is given  the tenant against the assise1 and the plaintiff in many ways. For he may say that the  plaintiff was never in seisin of that tenement as of his free tenement, though in seisin  in some way. Since the word his is used, he is taken to intimate that if the plaintiff  was once in seisin he was in seisin not in his own name but another's. Hence when the  plaintiff has supported his intentio and shown that the tenement is his, the tenant may  show, if he can, that it belonged to another at the time of the disseisin, which he may  do in many ways, as may clearly be seen from what has been said above. From the  words of his free tenement in the writ an exception arises for the tenant against the  plaintiff, but it does not lie for every tenant,2 for though they may eject rightfully  they cannot do so without judgment, [and] though they have the right to eject, they  only have it immediately, not after the lapse of time. Hence if the true lord alleges  that he ejected him rightfully, the replication may be made that he did so wrongfully,  because without judgment, and if the true lord excepts that he has the right and the  free tenement and was ejected wrongfully and without judgment, and that the plaintiff,  who ejected wrongfully, cannot have the fee and free tenement, a replication may  be based on time, that the true lord lost his free tenement by the lapse of time, by  acquiescence, negligence or weakness.3
That long-continued acquiescence is the equivalent of consent.
 For long-continued acquiescence amounts to consent and negligence or dissimulation  nullifies an injuria.4 Hence the disseisor, when he has time on his side and a quasi-free  tenement, cannot be ejected without writ and judgment. Thus if he is disseised without  judgment and brings the assise, the exception that he had no free tenement will  not bar him, because of the usurpation without judgment on the part of the true  lord,5 and because of the elapsed time on the part of the disseisee. If someone other  than the true lord ejects after a time, or immediately after the disseisin or intrusion  [when the lord] would have6 the exception that the plaintiff7 had no free tenement, he  will not have the exception of free tenement; where he has ejected at once, because he  had no right; though he could if he had right. Nor will the exception of tenuous seisin  bar an intruder or disseisor against an intruder or disseisor, because whether he had  tenuous seisin or some other is no concern of theirs, since it is not for them to eject an  intruder or disseisor, because of [his] earlier seisin, of some kind and to some degree,  rightful or wrongful, since as against8 a disseisor it makes no difference