none of it, and if he holds it all, whether he holds in his own name or another's: [in  another's], as in wardship or in gage, at will or for a term of years. The writ then falls,  because the action does not lie against him but against him in whose name he is in  seisin. If he holds in his own name, we must then see whether he holds for a term of  life or as of fee, in which case he is allowed the view if he claims it, [that is], that the  demandant show him how much land he claims and by what boundaries, and for this  reason a delay will be given him, that, having had the view, he may know1 whether  he holds the land as a whole or not, as above in the tractate on making the view.2[This  is true unless the demandant can at once show how much with certainty, by doing  what amounts to the same thing, as where he says I claim so much land by such  boundaries, or so much land of which your ancestor died seised as of fee, or thus:  I claim the advowson of the church of St. Peter, when there are two churches in the  same city, namely, St. Peter's and St. Paul's, as above more fully in the tractate on  making the view.]3
When he has had the view.
 When the tenant has had the view or what amounts to it, he may know whether he is  bound to answer the tenant and his writ or is not, according as he holds the whole  thing, in his own name or another's, or holds nothing thereof or only a part, for if he  does not hold the whole he cannot lose what he does not have, and thus the writ falls,  [but not the action] unless the demandant can show that the tenant holds the whole  in demesne and in service, unless the tenant can show the contrary, that he holds it  neither in demesne nor in service, in which case a wager may be made if the parties  are prepared to run the risk, either that the tenant lose the thing claimed or the  demandant his claim forever,4 but this will be their own voluntary act and not that  of the court. And note that when the tenant has once put forward an exception of this  kind, he cannot later put forward another like it, lest the matter be protracted excessively,  and he may be forced to show what he has in possession, lest the writ fall  again because of the lie.5 [which applies] to all exceptions directed to nullifying the  writ.
He must describe the thing claimed, what and of what kind, whether it is a movable or an immovable; the description must be definite.
 In this action by writ of right, as in every other action by which a corporeal thing is  sought, the demandant must describe what and what kind of