Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 354  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] the court of the lord king with respect to the same land between such a one, demandant,
[002] and such a one, tenant, or their ancestors, which was so brought before the court
[003] and determined that the land remained to the tenant or his ancestors by the grand
[004] assise or the duel, a jury or an inquest, [or by default after the duel waged or the
[005] grand assise chosen,] by fine made and the like. All these may be proved by the rolls
[006] and the record of the justices.

An exception also lies because of silence, because he did not put in his claim.

[008] An exception also lies for the tenant by reason of the demandant's silence, or that of
[009] one of his ancestors, as where one is silent when he sees [that others wish] to sue with
[010] respect to his right or make a concord [and] does not put in his claim before1 judgment
[011] [as where the grand assise has been awarded, the duel waged or a jury arraigned,] or
[012] a chirograph made in court, 2<as in the eyre of William of Ralegh in the county of
[013] Leicester, [the case] of William of Berimgehurst.>3 We must see who ought to put in a
[014] claim, how, when and where, and who is prejudiced and who not [if] a claim is not
[015] made. And when one is excused because he has not put in a claim and when not. Who?
[016] It is clear that it is anyone who has an interest,4 as one who has a right in the thing
[017] in dispute, either by himself or by another. How? It is clear that he may simply say
[018] ‘I put forward my claim,’ Or if the duel has been waged, he may say that he does not
[019] put his right either in the demandant's claim or the tenant's defence. It suffices
[020] if he or his ancestor does what amounts to that, as where they begin a plea against
[021] the tenant and make the thing litigious, for as it is more effective to appeal by deed
[022] than by word, so is it to make a claim by deed than by word. To this intent [in the
[023] roll] of Trinity term in the fifteenth year of king Henry in the county of Huntingdon,
[024] [the case] of a certain Goldeburga,5 against whom the objection was made that she
[025] had not made her claim; she answered that she did what amounted to it, because at
[026] the time the fine was made she impleaded the tenant by another writ. If he against
[027] whom [the exception] is made did not put in his claim, it suffices if his ancestor did
[028] so, as [in the roll] of Trinity term in the ninth year of king Henry


1. ‘ante’

2. Supra i, 422

3. Not in B.N.B.

4. ‘interfuerit’

5. C.R.R., xiv, no. 1624; not in B.N.B.

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