dower, in whatever vills, not to a single part in a single vill,1 which is proved in the  last eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Lincoln, [the case] of Heloise the  wife of Wace.2 But it is important whether she has it before impetration of the writ  or after. After impetration she may lawfully accept a part, when she [so] wishes. If  she has accepted a portion before impetration she may, as a dodge,3 name him who  restored in the writ, as though he had not restored, and say, in answer to the exception,  that he satisfied her.4 But if she does not name him in the writ the exception  will bar her and the writ will fall.
That the woman produce the warrantor through whom she claims dower.
 The woman's intentio having thus been set forth, if there is nothing that may be  excepted against the writ, let the tenant then first ask that the woman seeking  dower produce her warrantor, through whom she claims dower, that it may be  ascertained what right he has in the two parts, because anyone (other than the heir)  who deforces a woman of her dower will never answer her without the warrantor of  her dower, unless he wishes to do so, any more than she herself, if impleaded with  respect to her dower, would answer others without her warrantor. [Sometimes the  guardian is given the exception against a woman seeking dower that she may not  have dower before she produces the heir, as where she has fraudulently withdrawn,  hidden or removed him,5 if it can be proved that the heir has been withdrawn or taken  away by her; if there is doubt, the truth may be declared by the country, and in the  meantime the action of dower will remain in suspense.]6 And that the warrantor  ought to be demanded that it may be known what right he has in the two parts, is  proved [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the fourteenth and the beginning of the  fifteenth years of king Henry in the county of Warwick, [the case] of John the son of  Elfric,7 where it is said that a certain woman [A.] claimed dower against another  woman [B.] from a tenement of which her [A.'s] husband had been enfeoffed by the  husband of the woman now tenant [B.], whom she [B.] could not gainsay in his lifetime  and of which she [B.] had recovered her seisin against the husband of the woman  demandant. Whereupon it was clear that the woman demandant could not have  dower, because the heir of her husband had no right in the two parts.
If the woman's husband had committed felony.
 The same, as is evident, may be said of a woman whose husband has committed  felony,8 because the heir of a felon has no right in the two parts. And that she ought  to lose her dower is proved [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the fourteenth and  the beginning of the fifteenth years of king Henry, [the case of] Arnold de Kamerun  in the county of Worcester9 in a plea of dower.10 Nor will she have recourse on his  warranty against the chief lord whose escheat that land is,11 for the recovery