Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 248  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] because if, when the tenant raised two peremptory exceptions, or several, and failed
[002] in the proof of one, he could have recourse to the others and prove them, he could thus
[003] defend himself with several staves, which ought not to be, since one alone ought to
[004] suffice him.

An exception may be proved in many ways.

[006] An exception may be proved in many ways, by the voice of the dead, as by documents,
[007] as well as by that of the living, as by the country and by inquests, not by
[008] members of one's household, and servants, or persons suspect for some other reason,
[009] but by those connected by affinity with neither party.

Not by suit.

[011] Not by suit, which may be made by servants and members of one's household, for suit
[012] does not constitute proof but raises a slight presumption, which is destroyed by proof
[013] to the contrary and by wager of law.

Not by a single voice.

[015] Not by the voice of a single person, for such does not constitute proof nor does it
[016] raise a presumption. If one fails in the proof of an exception or a replication or others
[017] beyond, he will lose by judgment.

First of the exception raised against the jurisdiction.

[019] First let us speak of an exception common to all actions, namely, that raised against
[020] the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is nothing other than having the authority, ordinary or
[021] delegated, to do justice between the parties in actions touching persons and things
[022] which1 are brought in court, of which we have spoken above [of the power of judges.]2

What jurisdiction is and how is it divided.

[024] There is one jurisdiction, ordinary or delegated, which pertains to the priesthood and
[025] the ecclesiastical forum, as in spiritual causes and those annexed to a spirituality, and
[026] another, ordinary or delegated, which pertains to the crown and dignity of the king
[027] and to the realm, in causes and pleas touching temporal things in the secular forum.3
[028] Thus we must see to whose court and forum the actor ought to go.4 It is [generally]
[029] true that whether one wishes to sue a layman or a clerk, he ought to go to the judge
[030] and follow the forum of the reus,5 and he will have the judge at the place where the
[031] reus has his domicile,6 whether he has that within the jurisdiction of one judge or of
[032] two.7


1. ‘quae’

2. Supra ii, 304

3. Infra 281

4. Tancred, 127: ‘Videamus igitur cuius iudicium actor adire debeat’

5. Tancred, 127: ‘est verum quod sive clericum sive laicum velit quis convenire, iudicem rei debet adire, quoniam actor forum rei sequi debet’

6. Tancred, 127: ‘apud quem ipse reus domicilium habet’

7. Ibid.; Richardson, Bracton, 145

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College