Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 336

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 336

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] other exceptions which lie for a tenant against a demandant for the aforesaid reasons,
[002] which I do not now call to mind.

We have spoken of exceptions available to the tenant arising from the person of the demandant. Now we turn to exceptions arising from his own person.

[004] We have spoken above of the exceptions which lie for the tenant arising from the
[005] person of the demandant. We must now speak of those arising out of his own person.
[006] The exception of minority lies for him, that he need not answer before his full age, no
[007] more than the demandant may sue against him before he is of age, as was said above
[008] [in the portion] on minority,¹ where what is to be done in this case may be seen. [He
[009] may except] that he is not bound to answer because he is not in seisin in his own name
[010] but another's, and therefore cannot bring the matter to judgment. An exception
[011] arising from his person also lies for him² against the demandant because of uncertain
[012] status and the uncertain outcome of some action, as above.³ The exception also lies
[013] for him, arising from his own person, that he cannot answer without others who have
[014] as much right in the thing he holds as he, or because of conjunction, or greater authority,
[015] as above.⁴ But with regard to the exception he has for postponing the action
[016] and destroying the writ, according as his parceners are named in the writ or not, we
[017] must see whether the inheritance or thing held in common is divided among the co-heir
[018] or non-co-heir parceners or not. If it is not divided but held in common, each of
[019] the co-heirs has as much right to hold the inheritance as the others, not by himself,
[020] before it is divided, but by himself in common with the others. Thus he holds the
[021] whole and holds nothing, that is, he holds the whole in common and nothing separately
[022] by himself. Thus when a tenant excepts that he is not bound to answer without
[023] his parceners, we must first see whether the inheritance is divided or not. If it is, and
[024] the tenant holds the thing claimed as a thing⁵ divided and in purparty, all his parceners
[025] need not be named, for if those who hold nothing are named in the writ it falls,
[026] since the thing has ceased to be common, ⁶<as is proved [in the roll] of Michaelmas
[027] term in the fifteenth year of king Henry in the county of Essex, an assise utrum concerning
[028] John parson of Lamarsh and Ralph of Ardune and his wife and their parceners.⁷
[029] To the same intent, the case of the countess of Oxford and William

Notes

1. Supra 311

2. Om: ‘sicut’

3. Supra 293, 329

4. Supra 293, 315

5. ‘sicut rem’

6. Supra i, 421

7. Not in B.N.B.; not in Michaelmas 14-15; no roll extant for Michaelmas 15-16