Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 370  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] than the third part of all the aforesaid lands and tenements, then cause the surplus,1
[002] that which exceeds the value of that third part,2 to be assigned to the aforesaid C.,
[003] saving to the said A. the chief messuage of that manor. And if, according to a reasonable
[004] extent, there is less there than the aforesaid third part, then cause the same A.
[005] to have what she lacks elsewhere and in a suitable place from the inheritance of the
[006] same C. But if there is neither more nor less, let her hold herself content with the
[007] aforesaid manor with the appurtenances. Witness etc.’3

That a fine made in the king's court does not bar recovery of a specified dower.

[009] The question may be put, among others, whether a fine made in the king's court
[010] bars recovery of a specified dower, as where a husband, or another, aliens a woman's
[011] specified dower in some way and a fine and chirograph are made in the court of the
[012] lord king. In truth it does not, as is proved [in the roll] of Trinity term in the third
[013] year of king Henry in the county of Buckingham, [the case] of Alice the wife of
[014] Simon de Sentenham.4 Let the heir, if his father5 encumbered the dower, deliver it
[015] if he can and give escambium to the value to the feoffee holding by fine, and let the
[016] woman hold that land during her lifetime; after her death let it revert to the feoffee,
[017] not to the heir, to whom only the escambium [will revert].6

Exceptions against a woman claiming dower.

[019] When the tenant, a stranger or the heir himself, is in possession, and does not wish
[020] to vouch a warrantor against the woman claiming dower, he may except against
[021] her in many ways: peremptorily, why she ought not to have dower at all, or dilatorily,
[022] why the action and the exaction of dower ought to be delayed for a time.
[023] The woman shows in her intentio and in the evidence on which it is founded by what
[024] right the action of dower belongs to her. It is put thus: ‘Such a woman N.’ Thus we
[025] must first see that there is no error in the name, as above,7 [in the given name],
[026] because for the surname it is enough to say ‘such a one who was the wife of such a
[027] one etc.’ With respect to the word ‘was,’ it may be excepted that she was and is
[028] the wife of such a one, and that she cannot claim dower because her husband is
[029] still alive;8 if that cannot be denied, her action falls, for a constitution of dower and
[030] a gift propter nuptias is confirmed by the death of the husband.9 But there is civil
[031] death and natural death. If she says that he is civilly dead because he has entered a
[032] religious order, the answer may be made that the husband may return to the world,10
[033] because he has only assumed the probationer's habit. But if it is alleged on the part
[034] of the woman that the husband has taken the habit of


1. ‘superplusagium’

2. Om: ‘habere’

3. C.R.R., xiv, no. 2401

4. Not in B.N.B.; no roll extant

5. ‘heres si pater dotem’

6. Supra 368; B.N.B., no. 156

7. Supra 80

8. B.N.B., no. 163

9. Supra ii, 265, 275

10. B.N.B., no. 455 (margin)

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