Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 358  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] if it is objected that his ancestor did not put in a claim, if he who is said to be his
[002] ancestor was not the ancestor of him who now claims, <as in the case of warranty of
[003] charter,> in the sense that any right could descend to him through the aforesaid
[004] ancestor.

[If] the fine was made in secret, before the lawful time, that is, at least a month.

[006] One is also excused for not putting in his claim if the chirograph is made and fraudulently
[007] delivered before the lawful time, one month at least. And though at first sight
[008] a fine and chirograph may be revoked by reason of the persons involved, those who
[009] hold tenements only for life, as women holding in the name of dower and the like,
[010] or villeins [who] make a fine and chirograph of their lords' villeinage, in many cases1
[011] it is prejudicial to such lords when they are present, [who] cannot be excused if they
[012] have not put in their claim. On this matter may be found [in the roll] of Trinity term
[013] in the fourteenth year of king Henry in the county of Norfolk, [the case] of Richard
[014] Angod.2 One is sometimes excused for not putting in his claim by the king's service,
[015] since that ought to be no one's prejudice, provided that he is so in service that he can
[016] neither come nor send,3 as where he is besieged in a castle within the realm or hindered
[017] in some other way.

One is also excused if he speaks of his own seisin.

[019] One is also excused for not making his claim if he speaks of his own seisin before a fine
[020] made after a disseisin, and impetrates his writ before the fine, because the thing is thus
[021] made litigious.4

In some cases he is not excused.

[023] Note that one is not excused for not making his claim if he is in the realm within the
[024] four seas and may, if he wishes, come or send. And that he is not excused if he can
[025] send may be found in the roll of Hilary term in the seventh year of king Henry, in the
[026] county of Lincoln [the case] of William de Scotingny.5 Nor is he excused though ‘languor’
[027] has been a warded him, because he can send, as in the same roll in the county of
[028] Lincoln [the case] of Simon de Hales.6 7<Languor did not excuse him because he could have sent his man to put in his claim.>

If one says that he was hindered he must prove it, as where he says that he was overseas or in prison and the like.

[030] It does not suffice to say that he was hindered, he who alleges an impediment, unless
[031] he proves it by suit or the country, as where one says by way of replication that he


1. ‘in pluribus,’ from line 9

2. C.R.R., xiv, no. 336 (sidelined); not in B.N.B.

3. Supra 71

4. Supra 354

5. C.R.R., xi, nos. 129, 241; not in B.N.B.

6. C.R.R., xi, no. 233; not in B.N.B.

7. Not in list of addiciones supra i, 422; in OA, CM, LA, MC; om: OC, CE, OB, MA

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