Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 81  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] against a minor or in the person of a minor, a distinction must be made between
[002] age and age, and with respect to whether an essoin lies, whether the tenement is a
[003] military fee or socage,1 as may be found [in the roll] of the eyre2 of Martin of Pateshull
[004] in the county of Suffolk in the twelfth3 year of king Henry. And that an essoin
[005] lies in the person of a minor [and] against a minor in a possessory action may be
[006] found4 in the eyre of the same [Martin] in the county of Warwick in the fifth year
[007] of king Henry, from his eyre in the county of Shropshire, an assise of mortdancestor
[008] [beginning] ‘if Vincent,5 where it is said that if one is fourteen years of age that
[009] suffices for claiming socage,6 where an essoin may be admitted, both against him
[010] and for him.] The reason why an essoin does not lie in the person of a minor is
[011] because he cannot swear nor warrant the essoin.7 And the reason why it does not lie
[012] in the person of one of full age against a minor, in a possessory action, though he can
[013] swear, is because if he were present at the taking of the assise he could say nothing
[014] against it, why it should remain.8 But what if a minor under age is sued and impleaded
[015] with his wife, with respect to the right and inheritance of his wife? Quaere
[016] whether because of the minor's age the plea ought to remain. The truth is that it
[017] ought not, though a wife ought not to answer without her husband. And what if
[018] they are impleaded in the court of the lord king and also in another inferior court
[019] with respect to one and the same tenement and on the same day, where the minor-husband
[020] cannot essoin himself nor appoint an attorney? It seems that they ought to
[021] lose in the lower court by default, which would be wrongful, since there is nothing
[022] which may or ought to be blamed on them. No other remedy will be left except that
[023] the superior court warrant [his absence] against the action in the lesser court. And
[024] what if both courts are equal?9 An essoin does not lie for a disseisor, because though
[025] he does not come his bailiff may. Nor does it lie in the person of the bailiff, because
[026] the lord may come on his own account without the bailiff since both are attached
[027] disjunctively. [But] it does not suffice if one essoins himself, not unless both are
[028] essoined, though it suffices if one of them comes.10 [In truth an essoin does not lie
[029] because of the odium connected with spoliation, because the delay of fifteen days
[030] and reasonable summons ought to be denied them. And for this reason especially,
[031] because their absence is as effective as their presence, because whether they come
[032] or not the assise will not remain.] An essoin will well lie for the disseisee-plaintiff.
[033] An essoin does not lie for one who has been committed



Notes

1. Supra iii, 301, infra 312

2. ‘itinere’

3. B.N.B., i, 167; Selden Soc. vol. 59, p. xxix; not in B.N.B.

4. ‘Et quod . . . inveniri poterit,’ from lines 8-9

5. ‘de itinere . . . Vicentius,’ from lines 9-10; Selden Soc. vol. 59, nos. 1411, 1456; not in B.N.B.

6. Supra iii, 301, 302, infra 224, 311-12

7. Cf. infra 92, 106, 312

8. Supra 79, 80, infra 92

9. Supra 72, infra 156

10. Infra 85, 112


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