Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 382

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 382

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] We must first see whether two [who] have no dower claim against the tenant, or,
[002] when one has dower and the other has none, she who has none claims against him who
[003] has the two parts, [or] against the woman who holds the third part in the name of
[004] dower, who has vouched the heir or other warrantor of her dower to warranty, in
[005] order to ascertain for whom the exception against the woman-demandant lies, for
[006] when a warrantor has warranted he must defend the woman in possession, and thus
[007] the exception lies for him when he has undertaken the defense by the warranty. He
[008] may also except in his own name that the woman-demandant ought not to have
[009] dower for this reason: because A. in whose name she claims dower had a wife B. by
[010] name, who was with A. her husband for ten years, both in England and in Ireland,
[011] and was in seisin of the aforesaid A. her husband when he died, and therefore dower
[012] was assigned to her as to a lawful wife. To which the woman-demandant that the
[013] tenant says this wrongfully, because the aforesaid B. who claimed to be the wife
[014] of the aforesaid A. was not his wife, which is evident because she who now claims
[015] dower once claimed him as her husband in court christian at such a place before such
[016] judges, and by judgment in that same court deraigned the said A. as her husband,
[017] the same B. being present. And this she offers to prove. The tenant to the contrary,
[018] as before, that the aforesaid B. always was with the same A. as his wife, both in life
[019] and in death, without any claim or question moved by the woman who now claims.
[020] And she, asked where and when she was married to the said A. and whether she has
[021] proof of her allegation, answered that she had, whereupon she had a day for proving.
[022] But because on that day she had no proof she recovered nothing, [as in the roll of
[023] Michaelmas term in the ninth and the beginning of the tenth years of King Henry in
[024] the county of Buckingham, the case of Alice, the wife of John of Horsenden,¹ and
[025] in the roll of Hilary term in] the tenth year of king Henry in the bench, [the case]
[026] of Juliana the wife of Thomas Fughelston claiming dower,² against whom the
[027] tenant objected that she ought not to have dower because a certain Isabella de
[028] Cursun was the wife of the aforesaid Thomas, and of her the same Thomas died
[029] seised as of his wife. And after the death of the aforesaid Thomas, she had her dower
[030] fully, according to the law of Kent, of the whole tenement which had been Thomas's,
[031] and he asked judgment whether he ought to supply dower to two women from one
[032] tenement on the death of one man. To which Juliana answered that she and not
[033] Isabella was the wife of the aforesaid Thomas, but she says that in truth the aforesaid
[034] Isabella was with the aforesaid Thomas, [but] as an adulteress and not as a lawful
[035] wife. The matter having been heard, it was there decided that Juliana, if she so
[036] wished, should implead the same Isabella and

Notes

1. B.N.B., no. 1677; C.R.R. xii, no. 1268 (‘De dote’ written above entry): ‘quia predictus Johannes habuit unam uxorem Erneburgam nomine que vixit cum eo sicut cum viro suo et in Hibernia et in Anglia per xxv annos et eo amplius . . . Et Alicia dicit quod hoc iniuste dicit quia Erneburga que se facit uxorem Johannis non fuit uxor eius, et hoc bene patet quia ipsa Alicia peciit ipsum Johannem in virum in curia christianitatis apud Sanctum Paulum Londonie, et ibi eum per sentenciam disracionavit et in presencia Erneburge etc. et hoc offert etc. Et Henricus dicit quod Erneburga semper fuit cum eodem Johanne ut cum viro suo et obiit ut uxor sua . . . Et Alicia quesita quando desponsata fuit et ubi, dicit quod eo anno quo dominus Archiepiscopus consecratus fuit, et quod hoc factum fuit in ecclesia Sancti Nicholai apud [blank]; et nihil ostendit quod eum recuperavit in virum, nec scriptum indicum nec aliud’; Hall in E.H.R., lxxiv, 108

2. B.N.B., no. 1703; C.R.R., xii, no. 1835; ‘Juliana’ for ‘Alicia’