Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 214

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 214

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] and judgment as to the warranty is given as to all on one and the same day, and all
[002] when impleaded at the same time vouch one warrantor. On this matter may be found
[003] in the last eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Suffolk, [the case] of Matilda
[004] the widow of Matthew of Thurstone in a plea of dower.¹ It is otherwise, as is apparent,
[005] if they are impleaded at different times and the warrantor who lost [was vouched] at
[006] different times.

When the warrantor has nothing whence he can make escambium from the inheritance of him in whose name he was vouched to warranty.

[008] But what if the warrantor when he has warranted and lost has nothing whence escambium
[009] can be made, and² has neither alienated the property bound tacitly or expressly
[010] nor acted fraudulently so as to leave himself with less property or none? He
[011] will not therefore be absolved altogether from giving escambium, but [let him be
[012] ordered] to give escambium if anything afterwards comes to him from the inheritance
[013] of the father or mother or other ancestor by reason of whom he has been vouched to
[014] warranty,³ as [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the twelfth and beginning of the
[015] thirteenth years of king Henry in the county of Hertford⁴ [the case] of Beatrice the
[016] widow of Robert Russel.⁵

If he who enfeoffed had sufficient at the time of the feoffment, the property he then had is bound tacitly, or expressly by the modus of the gift.

[018] That those first enfeoffed have a privilege because of priority of feoffment when he
[019] who enfeoffed had sufficient at the time of the feoffment from which he could⁶ give
[020] escambium, and that, though he afterwards aliens, he leaves the thing, so to speak,
[021] tacitly bound, no matter to whom it subsequently comes,⁷ may be found in the roll of
[022] Michaelmas term in the ninth and beginning of the tenth years of king Henry in the
[023] county of Kent, [the case] of Rose, the widow of Robert de Caldiford,⁸ where she
[024] claimed dower against a man and his wife, who vouched to warranty a certain girl
[025] [daughter of Rose] within age, who answered that she had nothing of the inheritance
[026] of her father, by reason of whom she was vouched to warranty, from which she could
[027] warrant and make escambium. [The tenants said] that at the time they were enfeoffed,
[028] their feoffor, that is, the husband of the woman-plaintiff, had land in his hand which
[029] could fully suffice for

Notes

1. Not in B.N.B.

2. ‘et,’ from line preceding

3. Infra 231-2

4. ‘Hertfordiae’

5. C.R.R., xiii, no. 1173; not in B.N.B.

6. ‘posset’

7. Supra 197

8. C.R.R., xii, no. 926; not in B.N.B.