Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 27  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] they are in seisin in the name of their lords or others. But what of one who has a
[002] wrongful seisin, by disseisin or intrusion, and is disseised by one having no right, [or]
[003] has been enfeoffed by a non-lord and disseised by one having no right; does the plaint
[004] and remedy by assise lie for him? At first sight it seems not, since the disseisor has
[005] what seems an adequate exception against the assise, namely, that the disseisee had
[006] only a tenuous seisin, or that, because of its wrongful beginning, he could have neither
[007] a fee nor a free tenement. But in truth, though such unlawful possessor would have
[008] no action against true lords, nevertheless, because of the advantage of a possessor,
[009] he will have the plaint and remedy by assise against those who have no right, and
[010] they will have no exception of tenuous seisin or free tenement against him.1 ‘Because
[011] of the privilege of the possessor,’ I say, for if those having no right and being out of
[012] seisin had claimed, since they would have no proper action they would never recover
[013] against the possessor, though his possession is wrongful, and possession would thus
[014] remain undisturbed.2 Since they thus have no action and have disseised him, though
[015] a wrongful possessor, when they could not recover by judgment, if he claims by the
[016] assise, though it does not lie for him as of right, it nevertheless proceeds, in view of
[017] the odium connected with disseisin, because against him the aforesaid disseisors may
[018] have no exception.3<And [because], since neither of them has right, neither fee nor
[019] free tenement, judgment must be given for the first possessor, because of first seisin,
[020] since the second ejector had no right to expel, and because the thing could remain
[021] with the first forever, through the negligence of the true lord, because of the advantage
[022] inherent in possessing.> The remedy by assise and the plaint lies for him who has
[023] title for a time against all, no matter by whom he has been enfeoffed, a lord or non-lord,
[024] against him who has no right and him who has right, as where one [has been
[025] enfeoffed] by a non-lord, a guardian or a farmer holding for a term of years certain,
[026] or one who has entered by disseisin or intrusion; if the feoffee holds peacefully for a
[027] time, he cannot be ejected by the true lord without writ and judgment, provided the
[028] time is such as may suffice for title. He cannot be ejected by the non-lord, since he
[029] has his title from him, because of the title and the feoffment, and because of his act,
[030] even though no time has passed; nor by him who has no right, though the possessor
[031] has neither title nor time; but he may be ejected with impunity by the true lord if
[032] time sufficient for title has not passed. Similarly, remedy and restitution by the assise
[033] lies for him who is in seisin wholly without any title, by disseisin or intrusion, and is
[034] disseised without judgment, against all, whether they have right or not, provided he
[035] has the time that suffices for title. Thus time sometimes aids possession just as title
[036] does. The plaint and



Notes

1. ‘talem’

2. Infra 30, 122; addicio transposed below

3. Supra i, 392


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