Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 376  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] so that he can be taken and coerced. If the bishop then refuses to take action, let the
[002] sheriff do so on his default, for the reason stated above.

Of things held in common to be divided among neighbours which has been briefly discussed above in two places.1


[004] 2Among other actions there is a mixed action which is both in rem and in personam,
[005] where both are actor, both reus, as the action de communi dividundo, where, there
[006] being no ties of kinship or relationship, strangers have some thing held in common
[007] to be divided among them, as neighbours and those who are complete strangers.
[008] There is another mixed action called the actio familiae erciscundae, which lies between
[009] those who have a common inheritance to be divided, [But these two actions do not
[010] come into existence at once, though the inheritance or other thing is held in common,
[011] only when one of them wishes to divide it.]3 either by reason of the persons among
[012] whom the thing ought to be divided, as several sisters who are, so to speak, a single
[013] heir, or by reason of the thing which is divisible among several male heirs, as4 between
[014] several brothers who are [not],5 so to speak, a single heir,6 where each of them
[015] is actor and each reus. That is why it is called a mixed action. He7 will be called actor
[016] who first brings the matter into court.8 In both these cases, when the parcener or
[017] co-heir claims his reasonable share against his parceners or co-heirs and they default,
[018] land to the value of the part which falls to the demandant must be taken into the
[019] hand of the lord king from the common inheritance, and thus the distress here will
[020] be real and not personal.9 There is a third action for determining and settling the
[021] boundaries of fields between neighbours, which is called the actio finium regundorum,
[022] which is the same as [where] the king orders that rightful bounds be drawn between
[023] neighbours, and where on the default of the defendant the portion in question ought
[024] to be taken into the hand of the lord king, and so the distress will be real and not
[025] personal. Sometimes two actions are included in one writ, one personal and one real,10
[026] and though11 each of them could well be regarded as frivolous and useless, that is, [for
[027] recovering seisin].12



Notes

1. Supra 160, 168

2. Supra ii, 293

3. Om: ‘Et haec . . . in proparte’

4. ‘ut’

5. Supra 163, 168, 330, 331

6. ‘inter plures . . . heres,’ from lines 16-17

7. ‘ille’

8. D. 10.3.2.1; supra ii, 293, iv, 168; Drogheda, 391

9. Supra 160, 168

10. Ibid.

11. ‘licet’

12. Supra 160, 168; unfinished


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