she has a husband and cannot sue without him, or if she sues with him [or] has no  husband,1 that she cannot sue without the warrantor of her dower.]
Of claiming the view.
 The woman's intentio having thus been put forward, the tenant may well claim the  view, if he so wishes, by simply saying I claim the view or I claim the view of so  much land of which such a one claims the third part in dower. If he says I claim the  view of the third part which such a one claims in dower, the view will be denied him.2  After the view claimed, an essoin will lie, as in other pleas. And after the essoin and  lawful delays, the tenant may either vouch a warrantor, if he has a warrantor, or  answer in his own person and raise exceptions, if he has such. If he vouches a warrantor,  let the writ for summoning the warrantor be in this form. 3<[And so] if he does  not know how to name the warrantor, as in the eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the  county of Suffolk in the twelfth year, [the case] of Agnes, the wife of Robert Ruffus,  and Robert of Barnes, [where] the woman recovered dower at once and the tenant in  mercy.>4
If the tenant vouches a warrantor.
 The king to the sheriff, greeting. Summon D. of N. by good summoners to be before  our justices etc. on such a day to warrant to A. the third part [of so much land] (or  so much land with the appurtenances) in such a vill which B. who was the wife of  C. in our court before our justices etc. claims in dower against the aforesaid A., as  to which the same A. in our court before our same justices vouched the same D. to  warranty against the aforesaid B. And have there the summoners and this writ.  Witness etc.' On which day each may essoin himself, [as elsewhere [in the portion]  on warrantors.]5
If he has no warrantor.
 But if the tenant has no warrantor, let him then either restore dower to the womandemandant  or raise exceptions, if it appears that they are available to him. First  let him raise those exceptions against the writ which are common to all pleas, as  where error is found and the like; then let exceptions particular to this writ be  raised, as where she has part of her dower; the writ [then] falls,67<as in the eyre of  Martin of Pateshull in the county of York in the third year of king Henry [the case]  of Alice the wife of Adam son of Peter,8 and to the same intent in the same eyre [in  the county of Worcester, the case] of Alice the wife of Hugh de Alencester,9 and  elsewhere throughout,> since the phrase quod nihil habet is contained in the writ,  for a lying suppliant ought not to have what is sought.10 Nor ought the replication  to avail the woman demandant that though she has her dower in another vill she has  nothing in this vill, since the word nothing refers to her entire