Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 228

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 228

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] by the assise,¹ not only because the first donee had no true seisin by which he could
[002] transfer the advowson to another [but also because] the second donee could not take
[003] what the first could neither give nor transfer. On this matter, [as above.] Similarly
[004] [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the eighth and the beginning of the ninth years of
[005] king Henry in the county of Bedford, [the case] of John of Trailly and the prior of
[006] Newnham, an assise of darrein presentment for the third part of the church of Southill,²
[007] in which the prior answered to the assise that the aforesaid John could not present
[008] because a certain Walter, grandfather of the same John, who last presented to the
[009] aforesaid third part, gave the advowson of that third part to one Fawkes de Breaut‰,
[010] who gave it to the house of Newnham. And because the same prior acknowledged
[011] that the aforesaid Walter made the last presentation, and that the aforesaid Fawkes
[012] never presented before he gave that advowson to the aforesaid house, it was held
[013] that the aforesaid John recover his seisin. To the same intent [in the roll] of [blank],³
[014] particularly since there neither the first donee nor the second had a tenement in the
[015] vill in which the church stood to which the advowson could be appurtenant. To the
[016] same intent in the roll of Hilary term in the ninth year of king Henry an assise of
[017] darrein presentment in the county of Norfolk, between the⁴ abbot of Missenden and
[018] Hubert de Burgh concerning the church of Owelton,⁵ where the same abbot produced
[019] a charter of one Walter de la Penne which bore witness that he had given etc. But at
[020] the end of the record [it is said that] since it was recognized that the same Walter had
[021] nothing in the manor in which the church was situated, and that neither he himself
[022] nor anyone in his name had ever⁶ presented, it was decided that the abbot take
[023] nothing.⁷ To the same intent [in the roll] of Hilary term in the sixth year of king
[024] Henry in the county of Stafford, [the case of] Ranulf earl of Chester and the prior of
[025] Kenilworth, concerning the church of Stoke,⁸ where he who gave the advowson had
[026] no seisin of the right to present nor any tenement in the vill where the church was
[027] situated. To the same intent [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the
[028] county of Worcester in the fifth years of king Henry,⁹ that if one to whom an advowson
[029] has been given gives it to another before he has presented the gift is invalid. To
[030] the same intent [in the roll] of Easter term in the ninth year of king Henry in the
[031] county of Cornwall, [the case of] Richard of Wyke and the prior of Tywardreath, an
[032] assise of darrein presentment concerning the church of Wike,¹⁰ where it is said that
[033] the gift of an advowson is invalid where the donor at the time of the gift had no seisin
[034] of any land to which the advowson

Notes

1. Supra ii, 162, iii, 218-19; P. and M., ii, 139

2. C.R.R., xi, no. 2780; not in B.N.B.; supra ii, 163; Hall in E.H.R., lxxiii 484

3. Erroneously copied from below; the citation is thus omitted

4. Om: ‘Waltero’

5. B.N.B., no. 1064; C.R.R., xii, no. 372; supra ii, 161

6. ‘umquam’

7. Similarly, B.N.B., nos. 49, 515

8. B.N.B., no. 199 (Trin.); C.R.R., x, 293; no roll for Hil. 6 extant; Hist. Coll. Staffs., iv, 23, 25, 222; supra ii, 161

9. Not in B.N.B.; cf. Selden Soc. vol. 53, no. 992; supra ii, 163

10. B.N.B., no. 1070; roll extant but case not in C.R.R., xii; supra ii, 162