other the heir apparent, as where it is said: I take your homage saving the right of  any other. Or thus: I take your homage according to your right, when he holds  some lands out of many others as to which other persons have right, which the lord  ought not to warrant. 1<But if the lord knows that there is no heir, or doubts whether  [a son] is heir, because he is a bastard, if the lord bears himself as heir and claims the  land against the tenant as his escheat,2 and then takes homage, though he says saving  the right of any other he is bound to warrant, since by so impleading he acknowledges  that there is no heir.>
If the vouchor held only for life; if certain persons are excepted.
 An heir is not bound to warrant one who has acknowledged in court that he held the  tenement as to which he vouches the warrantor only for the life of the vouchees's  ancestor. One is not bound to warrant against certain persons excepted in the gift by  the modus of the gift, as where it is said, I and my heirs will warrant against all persons  except against such a one and such a one,3 as [in the roll] of the eyre of the abbot  of Reading and Martin of Pateshull in the county of Warwick, as assise of mortdancestor  [beginning] if William Trussel.4
Where the gift provides that the donor is not bound to warranty.
 By the modus of the gift, by the consent of the donee, one is not bound to warrant  though homage has been taken, as where one makes a gift to another for homage and  service and provides in the charter, on behalf of the donor and his heirs, that if the  donee is impleaded neither he nor his heirs are bound to escambium or warranty, as in  the case of William Bruere, in many of his charters.5 Thus agreement defeats law,6 as  in many other places. But what if when the donee is impleaded he vouches his feoffor  to warranty because of the homage, which can be proved, and when the feoffor excepts  that he is not bound to warranty by the modus of the gift, the donee is unwilling to  produce the charter, since it works against him? Quaere whether he can be compelled  to do so. And if he can be, [if] he answers that he does not have a charter, or if he had,7  that he lost it by accident? It seems that proof fails though there is no absence of  right, [unless one says that this is to be frustrated by the country,]8 therefore a  donor would do wisely if at the outset he cautiously provided for himself by a written  record of the agreement.