Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 360  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] dower, in whatever vills, not to a single part in a single vill,1 which is proved in the
[002] last eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Lincoln, [the case] of Heloise the
[003] wife of Wace.2 But it is important whether she has it before impetration of the writ
[004] or after. After impetration she may lawfully accept a part, when she [so] wishes. If
[005] she has accepted a portion before impetration she may, as a dodge,3 name him who
[006] restored in the writ, as though he had not restored, and say, in answer to the exception,
[007] that he satisfied her.4 But if she does not name him in the writ the exception
[008] will bar her and the writ will fall.

That the woman produce the warrantor through whom she claims dower.

[010] The woman's intentio having thus been set forth, if there is nothing that may be
[011] excepted against the writ, let the tenant then first ask that the woman seeking
[012] dower produce her warrantor, through whom she claims dower, that it may be
[013] ascertained what right he has in the two parts, because anyone (other than the heir)
[014] who deforces a woman of her dower will never answer her without the warrantor of
[015] her dower, unless he wishes to do so, any more than she herself, if impleaded with
[016] respect to her dower, would answer others without her warrantor. [Sometimes the
[017] guardian is given the exception against a woman seeking dower that she may not
[018] have dower before she produces the heir, as where she has fraudulently withdrawn,
[019] hidden or removed him,5 if it can be proved that the heir has been withdrawn or taken
[020] away by her; if there is doubt, the truth may be declared by the country, and in the
[021] meantime the action of dower will remain in suspense.]6 And that the warrantor
[022] ought to be demanded that it may be known what right he has in the two parts, is
[023] proved [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the fourteenth and the beginning of the
[024] fifteenth years of king Henry in the county of Warwick, [the case] of John the son of
[025] Elfric,7 where it is said that a certain woman [A.] claimed dower against another
[026] woman [B.] from a tenement of which her [A.'s] husband had been enfeoffed by the
[027] husband of the woman now tenant [B.], whom she [B.] could not gainsay in his lifetime
[028] and of which she [B.] had recovered her seisin against the husband of the woman
[029] demandant. Whereupon it was clear that the woman demandant could not have
[030] dower, because the heir of her husband had no right in the two parts.

If the woman's husband had committed felony.

[032] The same, as is evident, may be said of a woman whose husband has committed
[033] felony,8 because the heir of a felon has no right in the two parts. And that she ought
[034] to lose her dower is proved [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the fourteenth and
[035] the beginning of the fifteenth years of king Henry, [the case of] Arnold de Kamerun
[036] in the county of Worcester9 in a plea of dower.10 Nor will she have recourse on his
[037] warranty against the chief lord whose escheat that land is,11 for the recovery


1. Supra 358, infra 396-7

2. Not in B.N.B.

3. ‘ut cautela,’ as supra ii, 156

4. Infra 396

5. Infra 361

6. Infra 361, nn. 5, 8, 13

7. C.R.R., xiv, no. 834; not in B.N.B.

8. Infra 395

9. ‘Wigorn’

10. C.R.R., xiv, no. 913; not in B.N.B.

11. Om: ‘nec’

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College