The warrantor ought to be described by his proper name if possible, or by what amounts to the same.
[002] When one vouches a warrantor he ought to designate him by his proper name if he [003] can, [if he is in being. If in his mother's womb it is another matter,] for if there is an [004] error in the name [or the person] the tenant may easily lose. For if he vouches1 thus, [005] I vouch the son of such a one without giving his name, the voucher is invalid, [that [006] is], when he has several sons, but valid if he has only one. But if he vouches thus, I [007] vouch such a one the son and heir of such a one, the voucher is good though he has [008] many heirs near and remote, because this must be understood to mean the nearer [009] heir. But what if there are several who claim to be heirs and which of them is the [010] nearer is not evident? It seems that the warrantor must be vouched disjunctively, as [011] I vouch such a one or such a one, whichever of them is the heir of such a person, or if [012] [there is an heir apparent and] an heir in the womb, that is,2 where a wife claims to be [013] put into possession ventris nomine, I vouch such a one, the heir apparent (in his own [014] name) or him who is in the womb, unless he turns into a monster or dies in the womb.3 [015] The reason for the doubt or uncertainty ought always to be expressed, as where one [016] says this one or that, whichever of them obtains the inheritance, as between an [017] uncle and a nephew, or a legitimate son and a bastard and the like. For it suffices, [018] when there are two who claim as heir, if one does as well as the circumstances permit. [019] This may be done,4 it seems, by analogy to disinheritance, for if one ought to be disinherited, [020] he ought to be disinherited by name, just as a warrantor ought to be [021] vouched by name, as where it is said Titius my son, be thou disinherited. An exheredation [022] is also valid and sufficient if he says My son be thou disinherited, no [023] name being added, especially if there is no other son,5 since it does not matter whether [024] a thing itself is done or its equivalent. But when there is one who claims to be heir [025] and seeks the inheritance and a woman also claims to be put into possession in the [026] name of her unborn child, or when several claim as heirs and which of them is the [027] more rightful heir cannot be ascertained, because of the uncertainty, since no one is [028] bound to warrant before the inheritance is taken up, it is safer and better to suspend [029] the warranty until certainty can be achieved and the truth established,6 by analogy [030] to this case,
If a warrantor of dower commits felony and there is a dispute between two chief lords as to the escheat.
[032] for suppose that one is impleaded as to two parts of a manor and a woman of the third [033] part which she holds in the name of dower, and as to which he