the warranty. 1<It seems that he is bound to answer with respect to things of which  his ancestor did not die seised as of fee, but conversely, that he is not bound as to  those of which he did die so seised.>2 Since before he reaches full age a minor is not  bound to answer as to anything of which his father or mother or other ancestor died  seised as of fee, in demesne or in service, except to a fine made as aforesaid, it seems  conversely that he ought to answer, both as to the warranty and the principal plea,  with respect to everything of which such ancestor did not die seised as of fee, neither  in service nor in demesne, as was said a little above.3 Hence whether the pleas are by  writ of right or are assises, as mortdancestor and the like, in which it can be shown  that the ancestor of the minor vouched to warranty did not die seised as of fee of the  thing claimed, neither in demesne nor in service, he will be bound to answer to the  warranty, and after that to the principal plea, despite his minority.4 But if his ancestor  died seised thereof as of fee, in demesne or in service, it will be otherwise. This  matter will be explained more fully below [of exceptions,] where the matters to  which a minor ought and ought not to answer are explained.5
A warranty sometimes is suspended by the death of the warrantor.
 A warranty is sometimes suspended by the warrantor's death, that is, where one  vouched to warranty dies, before he has warranted, or after he has warranted, no  matter when, provided he dies before judgment and before the plea between him and  the principal demandant has ended. Whether his heir is within age or not, the plea  does not fall on that account, nor will it all have to be begun afresh after the death of  the warrantor when he has once warranted and taken the defence upon himself, by  which he is made tenant, so to speak, since, as said above, the foundation still  endures, that is, the demandant and the tenant between whom the dispute arises;  thus let the heir of the deceased be vouched to warranty de novo. And that the heir  ought to be vouched is proved in the roll of Easter term in the sixteenth year of  king Henry in the county of Kent, [the case] of Alice of Bendenges.6 To the same  effect [in the roll] of Trinity term in the eighth year of king Henry, at the beginning  of the roll.7 And what is said of an heir ought to be applied to a successor, as in the  case of bishops, abbots and priors, as [in the roll] of Easter term in the seventh year  of king Henry in the county of Devon, [the case] of William Paynel and the abbot  of Dunkeswell.8 Thus the suit will not perish though its uninterrupted continuance  perishes.9