Harvard Law School Library
Bracton Online -- English
Previous   Volume 4, Page 348  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    



[001] in the county of Bedford, [the case] of John de Traylly and Walter de Godardville.]1
 [002] Thus one may lose in many ways by claiming too much.2 Too much may be claimed in
 [003] many ways, with regard to the thing, the cause, the place and the time,3 as where
 [004] one mentions or claims more than the tenant holds, the writ falls but not the action,
 [005] as may be seen in the case of a woman claiming dower, as where she claims more than
 [006] belongs to her in the name of dower; she does not fall from her action provided she has
 [007] made a protestation that she does not claim more than the third part of which her
 [008] husband died seised as of fee, as [in the roll] of Easter term in the seventh year of king
 [009] Henry in the county of Sussex, [the case] of Nichola the widow of Thomas de
 [010] Gasteneis.4

If the tenant lies in saying that he holds nothing as in the case of the prior of Wenlock and Walter de Lisle.5


 [012] When the tenant, as said above, lies in saying that he holds nothing, when he in
 [013] truth holds, and the demandant before any inquest made, deceiving himself, withdraws
 [014] from the writ and begins to sue against another, whom the tenant falsely said
 [015] was the tenant, who says he holds nothing as in truth is the case, and this is established
 [016] by an inquest, he who made the false denial will not lose because of his lie,
 [017] because the demandant did not convict him of lying but withdrew too hastily; thus
 [018] because of his negligence the lie is not punished, as it would be had he not been
 [019] negligent.

If the tenant says that he does not hold the whole and the demandant says that he does, a doubt arises by the denial and either a wager will lie or an inquest. There are appurtenances and the appurtenances of appurtenances.


 [021] When the tenant excepts that he does not hold all the land claimed and the demandant
 [022] says that he does, since this puts the matter in doubt let an inquest be taken with
 [023] the risk of loss by a wager, as [in the roll] of Hilary term in the ninth year of king
 [024] Henry in the county of Buckingham, [the case] of Roger of Dreyton.6 But if the
 [025] demandant objects that the land which ought to be excepted is not among the appurtenances
 [026] of the land claimed,7 let an inquest then be made by these words, ‘whether
 [027] so much land with the appurtenances which such a one holds in such a vill, is part of
 [028] so many

Notes

1. B.N.B., no. 1133; no roll extant

2. Supra iii, 281, 288; Barton in Tulane L. Rev., xlii, 578

3. Inst. 4.6.33: ‘Plus autem quattuor modis petitur: re, tempore, loco, causa’; B.N.B., no. 227 (margin): ‘Quod cadit breve ratione plus petitionis’

4. B.N.B., no. 1609; no roll extant

5. K.B. 26/148, m. 48d (1253); supra iii, 67

6. B.N.B., no. 1055; C.R.R., xii, no. 275 (Buckingham); B.N.B., no. 327

7. Supra 347

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