entry and a writ of right, at one and the same time, and may choose which of them  he prefers, nor ought he to be compelled to one rather than another, to the writ of  right rather than the assise. If he chooses to sue by the assise of novel disseisin, he  can thus avoid the court of his lord, without injuria to any one,1 and so of the other  pleas and assises; thus no injuria is done lords of courts if the demandant chooses to  sue by writs other than the writ of right, since he need not use it unless he wishes.  If the time-limit of the assise of mortdancestor has passed, however, the writ of right  will lie, since the demandant cannot then prove seisin by a witness's own sight and  hearing, only by another's, that of a father who saw and instructed his son, that he  might be a witness. The writ of cosinage is this.
The writ of cosinage.
 2The king to the sheriff, greeting. Order A. that rightfully and without delay he  restore to B. so much land with the appurtenances in such a vill of which C. the cousin  of B. (or the ancestor, such a one, with or without describing the persons as grandson  or grandfather) whose heir he is was seised in his demesne3 as of fee on the day  he died, as he [B.] says. And unless he [A.] does so and if [B.] has made you secure as to  [the prosecution of] his claim etc. then summon A. etc. to be [etc.] to show why he  has not done so. Witness etc. After essoins, the parties being present in court,  let the demandant put forward and support his4intentio in this way: A. claims against  B. so much land with the appurtenances in such a vill as his right, of which such a  one (by name) his ancestor (or cousin) whose heir he is (with or without describing  the relationship) was seised in his demesne as offee on the day he died, and from whom  the right in the aforesaid land descended to such a one as son and heir (and so one  after the other, exactly as in the writ of right, as will be explained below,)5 to him  who claims. And that such is his right and that such an ancestor was so seised let  him offer etc.
The answer to such a writ.
 And B. comes and defends his right etc. and says that he ought not answer to this  writ because he, the tenant, and the demandant are of the same stock from which the  inheritance sought descends, so that the writ of cosinage does not lie between them  any more than the assise. But we must see the reason why. A case may be put in  the persons of three brothers and in several different ways, as where the common  father or other ancestor dies seised of an inheritance and the youngest puts himself  in seisin of the whole, though it is not partible, or where the father or other common  ancestor, or the elder brother, or a stranger,