ought to be made in this way, and whereof such a one was seised as of fee and right,  and from him [the right] descended or ought to descend to such a one, the deceased,  that is, to him who committed the felony, which may not be.1 Hence whether the  heir who commits the felony dies [leaving children] in the lifetime of his father or  other ancestor or after his death, the assise falls completely in the person of the other  heirs.2[But the contrary appears [in the roll] of the eyre of William of Ralegh in the  county of Kent, an assise of mortdancestor [beginning] if Athelophus,3 where it is  said that the ancestor's felony does not bar the seisin of the heir, nor the succession,  if he who commits felony suffers judgment. But this is peculiar to the county of Kent  and to a tenement held in gavelkind; elsewhere the rule is otherwise,4 as [in the roll]  of the last eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Lincoln, an assise of mortdancestor  [beginning] if Henry son of Ives, concerning a tenement in Scroby.]5  6<In the case mentioned above, 7 the aforesaid Henry had a son8 named William who  forfeited the land of which he was in seisin because he forged the seal of the lord king;  his sisters brought an assise on the death of the ancestor, that is, of their common  father.>
Of several different cases.
 Another case. A certain woman claimed a tenement by assise of mortdancestor on the  death of her uncle. Answer was made her by her adversary that she could not claim  because her uncle had a surviving brother who was a nearer heir. She to the contrary,  that her uncle's brother was so disturbed in mind that he had killed a man and was  confined to perpetual imprisonment. Whereupon judgment was sought by the  opposing party as to whether she could claim by the assise during the lifetime of  her uncle. Judgment was adjourned coram rege where no action was taken, perhaps  because the woman did not prosecute, as [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin of Pateshull  in the county of York in the twelfth year of king Henry, an assise of mortdancestor  [beginning], if Odo son of Thorsinus.9 A younger brother claimed land by an  assise of mortdancestor against his eldest brother on the seisin of his middle brother,  because the eldest, though he was a nearer heir, could not be heir and lord, because  the tenement could not remain with him on account of the homage, as [in the roll]  of the eyre of the bishop of Durham and Martin of Pateshull in the county of York  in the third year of king Henry, an assise of mortdancestor [beginning], if Roger de  Amundeville,10 where it is said that an assise of