rights are claimed, as a right of advowson which is among the appurtenances of some  corporeal thing, for there can be no rights without bodies. [Sometimes a right of  advowson is claimed by itself, with its appurtenances, sometimes with the body, that  is, with the thing itself, when it is among the appurtenances of the thing.]
The exception that he holds nothing therof.
 When the demandant says in his intentio I claim against such a one so much land  with the appurtenances etc., the tenant may sometimes except against his claim  that he holds nothing thereof nor ever held any part of it. If the demandant cannot  deny this the writ falls, together with the action, [that is], when the tenant tells the  truth. But if he says that he holds nothing when in truth he holds the whole and puts  himself upon an inquest, if the tenant is proved to be a liar by the inquest he will lose  the thing claimed because of his lie.1 How and by what writ the inquest ought to be  made will be explained below; nor will there here be opportunity for a wager, unless  both parties agree thereto ex abundanti. If the tenant excepts thus, by saying that he  holds nothing but another does, if he is found to be a liar he loses what he holds  because of the lie, without wager. If he acknowledges that he holds the thing but  not the whole, because another [holds] part of the thing itself or its appurtenances,  if he is convicted of a lie by the inquest he does not on that account lose the thing,  either the whole or part, nor is his lie punished as in the previous case, but the plea  proceeds against the tenant that he answer for the whole, unless something else is  introduced by common consent, [as] a wager. And what is said of a body may be  said of its appurtenances, according as he holds the whole or part or nothing.
One may acknowledge that he once held the thing claimed but does not now hold it; we therefore must see when he ceased to possess.
 He may also answer and acknowledge that he once held the thing sought but does  not now hold it; in that case we must see when he possessed and when he ceased to  possess. One may cease to possess fraudulently, lest an action be brought against him,  or do so in good faith. Hence we must see whether he ceased to possess before impetration  of the writ or afterwards. If before, he is not guilty of dolus, since he has no  choice as to when he must answer, though the demandant may decide when he wishes  to sue. Nor is he guilty of dolus though