Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 282  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] the jurisdiction was his, he would proceed in every case, without distinguishing,
[002] despite a royal prohibition. He ought1 either to stay proceedings altogether or, when
[003] attached, come or send, so that, the plea having been examined in the royal court,
[004] he desist or proceed by counsel of the court. If he does not do so, let him be punished
[005] with the proper penalty, as above.

Jurisdiction is sometimes changed from one to another, or from person to person, because of a change in the name of things.

[007] Jurisdiction is sometimes changed from one jurisdiction to another because of a
[008] change in the names of things, as where a lay chattel is made spiritual, as when things
[009] have been tithed, so that the secular jurisdiction is changed to the spiritual. It is
[010] changed again, conversely, when the tithes or the things tithed are sold and transferred
[011] to another; they again begin to be lay chattels.2 The same may be said of a
[012] lay fee, that when its name has been changed by virtue of a testamentary causa, the
[013] lay fee is made, so to speak, a spiritual thing, [according to some,] as may be seen in
[014] connexion with houses, lands [and] tenements bequeathed in cities, boroughs and
[015] vills;3 they again become lay fee when the testament has been executed. 4<But in
[016] truth a prohibition lies, because if a house or estate in a borough is bequeathed, the
[017] matter will be determined in the secular forum, as ought to be done in the case of
[018] an assignment. If the legatee is in seisin, he will have an exception against the heir
[019] and the assise of novel disseisin if he is ejected. If he is out of seisin, he will then have
[020] an action in the secular forum by the modus of the gift, against all.>5 And so,6 as is
[021] evident, with regard to things given or promised because of a matrimonial causa
[022] principally, and so of things accessory to the marriage, as where money has been
[023] promised because of a matrimonial causa, because the accessory ought to be subject
[024] to the same law, that is, the same jurisdiction, as the principal matter.7 But though
[025] cognisance of the aforesaid belongs to the judge and the ecclesiastical forum, it will
[026] nevertheless have to be stayed at the royal prohibition.8

Whether the consent of private persons may change the jurisdiction.

[028] We must see whether the consent of private persons in private contracts may change
[029] the royal jurisdiction, as where one, betaking himself to a forbidden judicial enquiry,
[030] consents to another jurisdiction despite any prohibition.


1. Om: ‘igitur’

2. Supra 273-4

3. Supra 268, 273

4. Supra i, 417

5. Supra ii, 70, infra 283; cf. ii, 149, iv, 273

6. Om: ‘fieri deberet’

7. Supra 267, 273

8. Supra 274, 281

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