the war, of pleas which remained for judgment, the case beginning if William de  Greynville.1
That he is neither the feoffee nor his heir.
 A vouchee to warranty may also except against the tenant who vouched him that the  latter is neither his feoffee nor the heir of his feoffee, [that is], when the charter of gift  mentions only the feoffee and his heirs, and thus that [he is not bound to warrant  him, as] where his feoffee or his heir has enfeoffed others; he is not bound to warrant  such persons directly since the charter makes no mention of them,2 as [in the roll] of  Easter term in the ninth year of king Henry in the county of Middlesex, [the case] of  one Juliana who claimed dower against one Henry, who vouched to warranty one  William son of Hereward, who answered that he was not bound to warrant because  neither he nor his father had enfeoffed the same Henry, though he admitted that his  father had enfeoffed a certain Thomas and the said Thomas had enfeoffed Henry.  And since the said Henry was not heir of the said Thomas, though enfeoffed by him,  nor was the said William in seisin of Henry's homage and service, nor did the said  Henry have the said William's charter or other matter whereby he ought to warrant  him, it was therefore decided that William be quit of the warranty.3
One is not bound to warrant heirs other than those contained in the charter according to the modus of the gift.
 One is not bound to warrant heirs other than those included in the charter by the  modus of the gift, as where a gift has been made to a person, that is, to him and his  heirs, those he has born of his body and that of his lawful wife, or of a particular  wife, such a one.4
Where one has remitted and quitclaimed.
 One is not bound to warranty by reason of a quitclaim, as where one claims land  against another as his right and afterwards remits and quitclaims it [to him]; he cannot  on that account be vouched5 to warranty by him to whom the right has been remitted,  as [in the roll] of the eyre of the abbot of Reading and Martin of Pateshull in  the county of Gloucester in the fifth year of king Henry, [the case] of Ralph de  Chandos.6
And so if saving the right.
 One is not bound to warranty by reason of homage taken saving the right of any  other, as where there is doubt whether one7 is the heir, [and] there is no
1. Not in B.N.B.; Selden Soc. vol. 59, no. 173 (?)