Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 81  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] or office may not be changed1 any more than a proper name, nevertheless he may
[002] err as to that, as where2 the name is right but an error is made as to the dignity or
[003] office; the writ is good. If an error is made in the name but the dignity or office is
[004] correct, the writ is good. Sometimes the proper name is not expressed, and then the
[005] name of the dignity or office is enough, if there is no error as to that, and the writ is
[006] good against their successors, [that is], in a civil action where no penalty follows. If
[007] it is a penal action ex delicto it also extends to successors where no proper name is
[008] used, but not as to the penalty, only as to restitution, if he can restore.3 If the predecessor's
[009] proper name was used, it would be otherwise4 Office and dignity are almost
[010] equivalent terms, that is,5 every dignity is a kind of office, but not every office a
[011] dignity. There may be an office without a dignity, as the office of sheriff or coroner.6

Of error as to the thing.

[013] Error sometimes is made as to the thing itself, as where one calls a thing a vineyard
[014] where he ought to call it a church, or a lance instead of a vestment.7 For the names of
[015] things are immutable, the names of men changeable.8 There may be error as to the
[016] quality and quantity. Also as to the price, and in number, weight and measure.
[017] And in kind and colour. There may be error as to the thing with respect to its place,
[018] as where one says it is in one place when it is in another. But error of this kind
[019] ought not to be prejudicial when what the demandant had in mind may be drawn
[020] from the circumstances, [The same could be said of the division between fields,] as
[021] where the view is sought, for it does not matter whether a particular thing is done or
[022] something which amounts to it.

Of error as to the reason for an action.

[024] Error also is made with respect to the reason for an action, as where one in impetrating
[025] causes it to be understood that he possesses rightfully what he possesses wrongfully,
[026] or what he never possessed. Then we must see whether the reason is accidental
[027] to the action, if so, it does not hinder it. If it is a condition of the action, it destroys it
[028] completely.

Of error as to the place.

[030] There may be error as to the place, as9 where the disseisee impetrates to the sheriff
[031] in whose county the tenement is not situated, or says the tenement is in one vill
[032] when it is in another, as will be explained more fully below.10 [There are many
[033] exceptions against the writ dealt with below [in the portion on] the proprietary action,
[034] some of which are applicable here and some not, just as some exceptions against
[035] the writ in a possessory action, dealt with here, are not applicable there. For that
[036] reason all exceptions against


1. ‘mutari poterit’

2. ‘ut si’

3. Supra 44, 45, infra 83; E. Kantorowicz, 383

4. Infra 83

5. ‘scilicet,’ OA, LA

6. ‘Item si . . . dignitatem,’ supra 80, n. 10

7. D. ‘Et is in re erraverit, ut puta dum vult lancem relinquere, vestem legat’; Drogheda, 134: ‘vult lancem relinquere, vestem leget’

8. D. 30.4. pr: ‘rerum enim vocabula immutabilia sunt, hominum mutabilia’

9. ‘ut’

10. Infra 137 ff.

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