Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 396  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] of Nassendon.>1 To this the woman may replicate that her husband committed no
[002] felony, or if he did, that he was not outlawed properly and according to the law of
[003] the land, and afterwards, that being proved, he was restored by the king to everything,
[004] the outlawry being, so to speak, void.2 Thus the inheritance was restored to
[005] him. [Or] that he was outlawed by the king's will and not in the accustomed way.3
[006] [Or] that he was never [so] outlawed or convicted that his inheritance could be the
[007] escheat of the lords. [Or] if he was convicted, that by the king's leave, after the
[008] conviction, he entered into religion.4 [But this replication is insufficient since the
[009] judgment is complete, though not put into execution, because it is by the king's
[010] grace that those so convicted may have their lives, provided they enter religion, as
[011] happened [in the case] of John of Herlezim of London who by the king's grace became
[012] a Hospitaller,5 or abjure the realm, because they cannot remain in the kingdom
[013] after conviction.]

If a man's son and heir commits felony before the assignment of dower.

[015] Suppose that the heir and warrantor of a woman's dower commits a felony after the
[016] death of his ancestor and before the assignment of dower; quaere whether she ought
[017] to lose her dower on that account. At first sight it seems that she should, [because]
[018] she lacks a warrantor of her dower, so to speak, and, so it seems, things properly
[019] done before the felony are valid, but those to be done after it cannot be brought to
[020] completion.6 But in truth she does not lose her dower on that account, because
[021] though he ceases to be her warrantor, he to whom the inheritance comes by reason of
[022] escheat begins to stand in the place of the heir and warrantor, because her husband
[023] did not commit felony. It is otherwise of the wife of a felon.7

Against a woman [who says] ‘whereof she has nothing.’

[025] With respect to what the woman says in her intentio, ‘and whereof she has nothing,’
[026] if she has some part of her dower, however small, and cannot deny it, or if it is proved,
[027] the writ falls,8 nor can she sue for the portion she lacks except by a writ of right of
[028] dower, which will be expounded below in its proper place.9 Let her, therefore, accept
[029] no part of her dower before impetration, so that the writ may include all the deforciants,
[030] wherever they are, in one county or in several. When they are all included,
[031] let her then first accept it, even without judgment, nor will the exception that she
[032] has some part bar her, because she can answer that she was satisfied before judgment.
[033] If she has received part of her dower from someone before impetration, let her have
[034] him named in the writ, like the others, to appear like the others. Then she may first
[035] say, if the exception is raised, that he satisfied her, nor will it make


1. B.N.B., no. 1644; C.R.R., xi, nos. 529, 959

2. Supra ii, 357

3. Supra ii, 358; cf. Selden Soc. vol. 53, no. 478

4. Selden Soc. vol. 53, no. 1298

5. Lib. de Antiquis Legibus (Camden Soc., 1846), p. 5 (1226)

6. Supra ii, 100

7. Supra 360

8. Supra ii, 276, iii, 357, 359, 360

9. Infra 400

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