Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 192  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] Many other wrongful nuisances may be committed, as will be explained briefly below,
[002] but let what has here been said suffice for the present by way of example.

That things wrongfully erected to the nuisance [of another] may be demolished immediately and without delay.

[004] Things so erected [or destroyed or demolished] to the wrongful nuisance [of another]
[005] may be immediately demolished and thrown down [or re-erected and restored] while
[006] the misdeed is still fresh,1 as in the case of other disseisins, if the plaintiff is able to do
[007] so. If not, recourse must be had to him who safeguards rights;2 he will have his remedy
[008] by this writ.

Writ touching the same.

[010] 3The king to the sheriff, greeting. Such a one has complained to us that such a one
[011] wrongfully and without judgment constructed a certain wall (‘bank,’ ‘hedge,’
[012] ‘palisade,’ ‘house,’ ‘gate,’ ‘bridge,’ ‘pond,’ ‘sluice,’ ‘weir,’ ‘mill’ [or] ‘sheep fold’)
[013] in such a vill to the nuisance of his free tenement in the same vill after our last return
[014] from Brittany to England.4 Therefore we order you to hear that plea and cause him
[015] to be justly dealt with therein. Lest we hear further etc. Witness etc.’ [Similarly, a
[016] writ may be drawn as to the foregoing in the reverse way: ‘why one wrongfully cast
[017] down such things to the nuisance of his free tenement etc.’ Also ‘why he raised a
[018] pond,’ [or] ‘why he obstructed (or ‘narrowed’) a road to the nuisance [etc.],’ [or]
[019] ‘why he diverted a water-course,’ and the like.] [It is clear that if anyone does something
[020] in one county which causes harm in another, the writ will always be impetrated
[021] to the sheriff of the county in which the nuisance was done.] Thus the correction of
[022] these things sometimes belongs to the sheriff by the aforesaid writ, and similarly,
[023] with respect to the road obstructed, by the writ ‘that he justice,’ because of the
[024] common welfare, lest travelers be too long delayed,5 6<If one does something 7 to
[025] prevent another from going to a spring, a lake, a well [or] a fish-pond or from drawing
[026] from a spring, such persons may fall into the assise.8 9[Servitudes] are not only for the
[027] conducting of water but also for drawing it, and thus the servitudes of conducting and
[028] of drawing water are distinct.10 11 If one is prohibited from using the water, or from drawing it or driving his cattle to it,12 he also falls into the assise. 13 But this is not so in
[029] the case of a cistern because


1. Supra 164, 189, infra 193

2. C. 3.28.35.pr.

3. Cf. Glanvill, xiii, 35, 36

4. Date fixed 1237: B.N.B., no. 1217

5. Supra 164, 189, infra 193, 196

6. Supra i, 402; Barton in Tulane L. Rev., xlii, 559

7-8. Reading: ‘si quis aliquid fecerit . . . ire possit vel haurire de fontana aqua, tales cadere . . . in assisam’; D.

9-10. Ibid.: ‘Servitutes enim non tantum aquae ducendae esse solent verum etiam hauriendae, et sicut discretae sunt servitutes ductus aquae et haustus aquae’; reading: ‘sic’ for ‘sed’

11-12. D. ‘Hoc autem interdictum locum habet si quis uti prohibeatur aqua, hoc est sive haurire sive etiam pecus ad aquam appellere’

13-14. D. ‘Hoc interdictum de cisterna non competit, nam cisterna non habet perpetuam causam nec vivam aquam . . . cisternae autem imbribus concipiuntur denique constat interdictum cessare, si lacus, piscina, puteus vivam aquam non habeat’

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