granted to her husband, but nothing from the other half, because her husband  never had that land so in fee that he could endow a wife, because his seisin was of  another's right. But what if the older brother dies first, the younger surviving? His  wife will only recover dower from the half her husband retained, for though the  acknowledgment was made of the right of the whole inheritance, of half of the thing  she claims her husband was never in seisin, only of the service. If, as said above, the  women demandants are asked to produce the warrantors of their dowers, they can  produce no one except the heir of the deceased who is bound to warrant their dowers  to them. But if the younger brother, when he was impleaded for the whole, acknowledged  the whole1 to be the demandant's right, and remitted it [to him], his wife will  not recover dower, because that acknowledgment did not proceed from deceit,  hatred or greed, but [was] of another's right. This case is similar to that between  John de Breuse the son of William de Breuse, the older brother, and Reginald de  Breuse the younger brother, against whom Matilda de Clare, the wife of the aforesaid  William, claimed dower from the half which remained to the aforesaid Reginald,  the younger brother, by a concord made between him and the aforesaid John his  nephew.2 What is said is true of a doubtful thing, that she will recover her dower in  view of the doubt, because of the uncertainty, because when there is a doubt her  husband may equally well acknowledge and remit his own right as another's,3  but not so in the case above, because there a certainty is acknowledged and remitted.  That is the reason why a woman may claim dower of a thing acknowledged by  concord, because her husband may equally well remit his own right as another's.4
If the husband has aliened his land before marriage.
 The tenant may also concede that her husband was seised as of fee and of right and  so in demesne that he could endow her, but except that her husband aliened the thing  from which dower is claimed before he married her, so that on the marriage day he  was not [so] seised that he could endow her thereof, since he had previously given it  to another in fee, to him and his heirs, or for life in some way, or in fee subject to the  condition, tacit or express, that the thing given revert for failure of heirs, as in free  marriage,5 or subject to some other condition by which it would remain if the condition  were satisfied or revert if it failed to occur. [Or] that the thing from which  she claims dower was previously assigned6 to another woman, still alive, or if dead,  that it was not delivered in her husband's lifetime,78<as may be found in the eyre