one who recovered by judgment of his court; if he vouches his court to warranty it  ought to be heard and let the record come, for if the court has judged incorrectly it  will be held to the penalty, not he, though he is bound to restore.1 But this exception  may be raised: is not the lord bound to a penalty when the court has decided incorrectly  and he has entered into the tenement immediately after the judgment,  thus becoming a disseisor together with the court, just as another who enters immediately  after a disseisin, through the disseisor and with his consent or against his  will by disseisin? 2When one so enfeoffed after a long interval vouches a warrantor  and has been warranted, by judgment or in some other way, by that warranty the  thing seized is now quasi-transferred to him, so that he who committed the disseisin  may restore it to the plaintiff, which he could not do before the warranty, and so the  feoffee will be freed completely and the disseisor-feoffor3 held to restitution and likewise  to the penalty for disseisin, and thus by the warranty all is brought back to the  time the disseisin was committed. It is submitted that this may always be done, no  matter to whom the thing has been transferred after the disseisin, one or several,  them or their heirs, as long as the principal persons survive, that is, the disseisee and  the disseisor who aliened. When one of them dies, however, the action is extinguished  to the extent that it is penal. But when the disseisor transfers the tenement to  another, immediately or after an interval, and the disseisor and the disseisee are still  alive, quaere whether the disseisee may claim the tenement against the tenant by a  writ of entry, the disseisor being still alive, as he could if he were dead, and claim  restitution and remit the penalty for disseisin, as could one who has a criminal  action against another, [where] it will be in his discretion to proceed criminally or  civilly? No, because if a warrantor [the disseisor] is vouched, as aforesaid, the action  could thus become a penal action though brought civilly, which cannot be determined  by this writ.>
The plaint heard, let the king send the writ to the sheriff.
 The plaint having been heard by the superior whose duty it is to halt violence and  wrong4 and to whom recourse must of necessity be had, he will send his writ to the  sheriff, which will contain both the names of the plaintiff and him of whom complaint  is made, whether one or several, and the form of the plaint, according as it has been  made to him who protects rights,5 in these words.