Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 3, Page 389

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 3, Page 389

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] the custom of our city of London (or ‘York’) he render to B. who was the wife of C.
[002] her reasonable dower which falls to her from the free tenement which belonged to
[003] the said C., her late husband, in London (or in another city, such a one, or in a suburb
[004] of London), of which she has nothing, as she says, and of which she complains that
[005] the aforesaid A. deforces her, lest we hear further complaint thereon for default of
[006] justice.’ Let the plea then proceed in the court of the citizens according to their
[007] custom. And that in a claim of dower custom is to be followed, is proved [in the roll
[008] of Michaelmas term] in the second year of king Henry before Martin in the bench,
[009] [the case] of Isabella of Gravenel who claimed dower against Thomas of Wadenhale
[010] on the death of her husband Walter.¹ Thomas answered that she could not and
[011] ought not to have dower because, after the death of the aforesaid Walter in whose name
[012] she claims dower, she took another husband, and the custom in those parts is that
[013] wives of deceased husbands have their free bench in the lands of sokemen and hold
[014] for life in the name of dower, but that if they remarry after the death of their husbands,
[015] the custom in that county is that they lose the dowers they have in the name
[016] of the first husband. To which Isabella replied that she was never in seisin thereof,
[017] in the time of her second husband no more than her first, and asked judgment
[018] whether she could lose a thing she had never had. It was answered and attested
[019] that whether she was seised or not, if after the death of her husband² she took another,
[020] she ought to lose her dower if she was in seisin, and if out of seisin her claim. And let an
[021] inquest be held in the county as to whether such is the custom or not. There is this
[022] custom in the city of Lincoln, that if a man in dire need sells his inheritance, his wife
[023] will not have dower therein, as [in the roll] of the last eyre of Martin of Pateshull in
[024] the county of Lincoln.³ But if he pledges or puts it out for a term she will have dower,
[025] and from all the other lands of which her husband died seised as of fee, as happened
[026] [in the case] between Basilia who was the wife of Henry the son of Warren, demandants,
[027] and Basilia who was the wife of Michael of Munpelers.³ And to the same intent,
[028] in the same eyre, [the case] of Robert of Arundel and his wife Katherine and master
[029] Robert of Cravelega.³ It is also a custom of Lincoln that after the death of her
[030] husband a woman may only claim dower within the city of Lincoln⁴ from the tenements
[031] of which her husband was seised as of fee on the day he died.⁵ There is a custom
[032] in the city⁶ of York that a woman must claim her dower within a year and a day of
[033] the death of her husband, otherwise she will not be heard, as in [the case] of

Notes

1. B.N.B., nos. 9, 1338; infra 400

2. ‘viri’

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

4. Om: ‘post . . . petere,’ repetition

5. ‘obiit’

6. ‘civitate’