Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 347  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] Michaelmas term in the ninth and the beginning of the tenth years of king Henry in
[002] the county of Bedford, [the case] of Richard de Vabadun.1 And note that if one
[003] claims land with the appurtenances from another, and claims in demesne what is in
[004] demesne and in service what is in service, if the tenant holds nothing in demesne the
[005] writ falls. And so [as to service], though he who holds of the tenant ought to hold of
[006] him, if the tenant who is impleaded has received none of the service the writ falls in
[007] the same way as above, as [in the roll] of Trinity term in the fourth year of king
[008] Henry in the county of Buckingham, an assise of mortdancestor concerning Hugh de
[009] Gurnay.2

If the tenant acknowledges that he does not hold the whole in fee, only part.

[011] If the tenant answers in this way, that he does not hold the whole in fee, but holds
[012] part in fee and part in wardship, the writ does not fall for the part he holds in demesne,
[013] as [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Kent in the twelfth
[014] year of king Henry, [the case] of Geoffrey de Resintone.3 And so if by one writ one
[015] claims several manors or lands or other things, which have no connexion with one
[016] another; the writ may stand for one part and fall for the other, since the pleas are
[017] completely different.

If one claims a manor with all the appurtenances to which an advowson is appurtenant.

[019] If one claims with all its appurtenances a manor to which the advowson of a church
[020] is appurtenant, and also claims the advowson by another writ, one of the actions and
[021] writs falls, since it is superfluous, because the demandant claims too much, since he
[022] claims the same thing twice, and one of his claims is nugatory and useless since the
[023] other is sufficient by itself. And so if he claims a manor with its appurtenances by one
[024] writ and afterwards in his narratio says ‘I claim such a manor with its appurtenances
[025] and with the advowson of the church.’ [Neither the action nor the writ falls on that
[026] account, but let the addition be disregarded as superfluous, since it suffices to claim
[027] the manor with the appurtenances.] [When the tenant says that he does not hold the
[028] whole because another holds the advowson,4 the demandant may replicate that the
[029] advowson is not appurtenant to the land claimed but to another barony and another
[030] fee, and therefore that there is no need to except it,5 as [in the roll] of pleas which
[031] follow the king in the twentieth year of his reign


1. C.R.R., xii, no. 1175; not in B.N.B.

2. B.N.B., no. 1465; C.R.R., ix, 175

3. Not in B.N.B.

4. See B.N.B., no. 322 (1229)

5. Supra 345, infra 348

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