as the inheritance has been divided among the parceners, in which case the writ  need only name those who hold the thing claimed, though they are not bound to  answer without their parceners, who are to be summoned to answer by another  writ and without whom etc.,1 just as may be said if one of several parceners claims,  that he ought not to be answered2 without the others,3 [or has not been divided],  in which4 case unless all who ought to sue are named in the writ, the writ falls, as does  the assise. And so if there are several tenants who hold the undivided whole, if all  are not named the writ falls completely. But what if, when all are named in the writ,  when they hold or claim in common, one dies? Though by the right of accruer the  deceased's part ought to accrue to the survivors,5 nevertheless, though they obtain,  the writ falls, because of the deceased's portion, held in common with the others;  since by that the portion of each of them is augmented by a new succession, so to  speak, another action and a new [writ] will be necessary.6 The writ of summoning a  parcener is given below.7
If felony is objected against the demandant.
 We have spoken above of the exceptions arising from the clauses of the writ where  the assise is taken in the manner of an assise. Now we must turn to the exceptions  arising from circumstances outside the writ. The objection of felony completely  destroys an assise of mortdancestor, as where the father, mother or other ancestor  on whose death an assise would lie has committed a felony, for such persons, if  convicted, can transmit nothing to their heirs. For they forfeit for their heirs whatever  has fallen to them at the time of the felony, right and seisin, both together or  even the mere right by itself when that falls to them without seisin. Not only what  has fallen to him, but whatever could fall to him from some ancestor, as may clearly  be seen. Suppose that a son and heir commits a felony in the lifetime of his father  and dies during the father's life; though it seems at first sight that the others after  him, the near heirs of the common father, begin to be nearer heirs by his death, not  only because neither right nor seisin could descend to the felon in the lifetime of  their common father, but because he did not survive so as to become heir, [it appears  that such persons begin to be nearer heirs, which is true.]8 But if the felon's  son or other heir claims on the death of the grandfather, or the felon's brother on the  death of their common father, [when the felon has children or has survived his  father,]9 since neither one of them can be a nearer heir except by reason of the  mere right descending to him, whether he claims by assise of mortdancestor or by  writ of right he will fall from both, since the computation of the descent of the mere  right from the ancestor