Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small]

non intelligitur esse sua, nisi de custodia. Sin autem nullus appareat qui haereditatem ipsam tanquam haeres requirat, tunc ipsi domino remanet haereditas ipsa escaeta ad remanentiam ; ita quod de illa disponere potest, sicut de sua propria, ad libitum suum. Praeterea si quae mulier, ut haeres alicujus in custodiam domini sui devenerit, si de corpore suo forisfecerit, haereditas sua domino suo pro delicto ipsius remanet escaeta. Praeterea si quis de felonia convictus fuerit, vel confessus in curia, eo per jus regni exhaeredato, terra sua domino suo remanet escaeta. Notandum quod si quis in capite de domino rege tenuerit, tunc tam terra quam omnes res mobiles suae, et catalla penes quemcunque inveniantur, ad opus domini regis capientur sine omni recuperatione alicujus haeredis. Sin autem de alio quam de rege tenuerit is qui utlagatus est1, vel de felonia convictus, tunc quoque omnes res suae mobiles regis erunt. Terra quoque per unum annum remanebit in manu domini regis, elapso autem anno, terra eadem ad rectum dominum, scilicet ad ipsum de cujus feodo est, revertetur, veruntamen cum domorum subversione et arborum extirpatione. Et generaliter quotiescunque aliquis aliquid fecerit vel dixerit in curia, propter quod per judicium curiae exhaeredatus fuerit, haereditas ejus ad dominum feodi de quo illa tenetur tanquam escaeta solet reverti. Forisfactura autem filii et haeredis alicujus patrem non exhaeredat neque fratrem, neque alium quam seipsum. Praeterea si de furto fuerit aliquis condemnatus, res ejus mobiles et omnia catalla sua vicecomiti provinciae remanere solent, terram autem, si qua fuerit, dominus feodi recuperabit statim, non expectato anno. Cum quis vero per legem terrae fuerit utlagatus, et postmodum beneficio principis paci restitutus, non poterit ea ratione haereditatem, si quam habuerit ille vel haeredes sui, versus dominum suum (nisi ex misericordia ipsius domini et beneficio) recuperare; forisfacturam autem et utlagariam solet dominus rex damnatis remittere, nec tamen aliena jura ideo quaerit infringere.

§ 6. Descent of an Estate of Inheritance.

The great characteristic of a feodum in the second sense of

1 The law of forfeiture in the case of outlawry is not affected by the Statute 33 and 34 Vict. c. 23. See for process of outlawry, Blackstone, iii. 283.

the term as an estate of inheritance1 is its capacity of descending to heirs, whether lineal descendants or collaterals. We have not as yet arrived at the distinction between different estates of inheritance, between estates in fee simple and estates in fee tail. The following passage contains in outline a statement of the law of descent which prevailed till it was recast by the Inheritance Act of 1833 (3 and 4 Will. IV, c. 106). The law as to the descent of socage estates, as stated in this passage, had become obsolete in Bracton's time, when the same rules as to descent prevailed in lands held in socage and by knight-service. The equal division of lands amongst all the sons only continued as a local custom in certain boroughs, and in the county of Kent, where it is still the rule. The point as to the respective rights of the younger son and a grandson (child of a predeceased elder son) was by Bracton's time settled by the adoption of the general principle that the issue represents the ancestor in infinitum 2.

Lib. vii. c. 3. Haeredum autem alii sunt proximi, alii sunt remotiores; proximi haeredes alicujus sunt quos ex suo corpore procreaverit, ut filius vel filia. Quibus deficientibus vocantur3 haeredes remotiores, scilicet nepos vel neptis ex filio vel filia recta linea descendens, in infinitum. Item frater et soror, et ex illis ex transverso descendentes. Item avunculus, tam ex parte patris quam ex parte matris, et matertera similiter, et ex illis descendentes. Cum quis ergo haereditatem habens moriatur, si unicum filium haeredem habuerit, indistincte verum est quod filius ille patri suo succedit in toto. Si plures reliquerit filios, tunc distinguitur utrum ille fuerit miles, sive per feodum militare tenens, aut liber sokemannus. Quia si miles fuerit, vel per militiam tenens, tunc secundum jus regni Angliae primogenitus filius patri succedit in totum*; ita quod nullus fratrum suorum partem inde de jure petere potest. Si vero fuerit liber sokemannus, tunc quidem dividetur haereditas inter omnes filios,

1 See above, p. 60.

2 See Bracton, 64 b.

3 Notice the influence of the phraseology of Roman law. This expression was properly applied to the action of the praetor. See Just. Inst. iii. 5.

There is no evidence as to the time when or the mode in which this change was introduced. See above, p. 47.

quotquot sunt, per partes aequales, si fuerit socagium illud antiquitus divisum, salvo tamen capitali mesuagio primogenito filio pro dignitate aesneciae suae; ita tamen quod in aliis rebus satisfaciet aliis ad valentiam. Si vero non fuerit antiquitus divisum, tunc primogenitus secundum quorundam consuetudinem, totam haereditatem obtinebit, secundum autem quorundam consuetudinem postnatus filius haeres est1. Item si filiam tantum unam reliquerit quis haeredem, tunc id obtinet indistincte quod de filio dictum est. Sin autem plures filias, tunc quidem indistincte inter ipsas dividetur haereditas, sive fuerit miles, sive sokemannus pater earum ; salvo tamen primogenitae filiae capitali mesuagio sub forma praescripta. Notandum autem quod si quis fratrum vel sororum, inter quos dividitur haereditas, sine haerede de corpore suo moriatur, tunc illa portio, quae defuncti u erat, inter caeteros superstites dividetur. Maritus autem primogenitae filiae homagium faciat capitali domino de toto feodo. Tenentur autem postnatae filiae, vel earum mariti, servitium suum de suo tenemento capitali domino facere per manum primogenitae vel ejus mariti. Nullum tamen homagium vel etiam fidelitatem aliquam tenentur mariti postnatarum filiarum marito primogenitae filiae inde facere in vita sua, nec earum haeredes primi vel secundi:tertii vero haeredes ex postnatis filiabus exeuntes, secundum jus regni homagium tenentur facere de suo tenemento haeredi filiae primogenitae et rationabile relevium. Praeterea sciendum est quod mariti mulierum quarumcunque, nihil de haereditate uxorum suarum donare possunt sine consensu haeredum suorum, vel de jure ipsorum haeredum aliquid remittere possunt nisi in vita sua 2. Si vero filium habuerit quis haeredem, et praeterea filiam habuerit vel filias, filius ipse succedit in totum: unde contingit quod si quis plures habuerit uxores et ex quolibet filiam vel filias, extremo autem ex postrema unicum filium; ille filius solus obtinet haereditatem patris; quia generaliter verum est quod mulier nunquam cum masculo partem capit in haereditate aliqua; nisi forte aliud speciale fiat in aliqua civitate, et hoc per longam consuetudinem ejusdem civitatis. Si vero habuerit quis plures uxores et ex qualibet earum filiam vél

1 As to borough English, see Blackstone, ii. 83; above, p. 48.

2 The husband by the marriage only acquires an estate in his wife's lands during the joint lives of himself and his wife. This estate in certain events (death of wife having had issue born alive) is enlarged into an estate by the 'curtesy' of England (per legem Angliae), i. e. an estate for the husband's own life. See below, Chap. III. § 16.

filias, omnes filiae erunt pares ad haereditatem patris, eodem modo ac si omnes essent ex eadem matre 1. Cum quis autem moriatur sine haerede filio vel filia, si habuerit nepotes vel neptes ex filio vel filia, tunc quidem indubitanter succedent ipsi eodem modo quo predeterminatum est supra de filio vel filiabus, et sub eadem distinctione. Illi enim qui recta linea descendunt, semper illis preferuntur qui ex transverso veniunt. Cum quis autem moriatur habens filium postnatum, et ex primogenito filio prae-> mortuo nepotem, magna quidem juris dubitatio solet esse, uter illorum preferendus sit alii in illa successione, scilicet utrum filius an nepos. Quidam enim dicere volebant filium postnatum rectiorem esse haeredem quam nepotem talem, ea videlicet ratione, quia filius primogenitus cum mortem patris non expectaret nec expectavit quousque haeres ejus esset, et ita cum postnatus filius superviveret tam fratrem quam patrem, recte ut dicunt patri succedit. Aliis vero visum est nepotem talem de jure avunculo suo esse praeferendum. Cum enim nepos ille ex filio primogenito exierit, et de corpore suo exstiterit haeres, in totum jus quod pater suus, si adhuc viveret, haberet, ipse patri suo succedere debet. Ita dico si pater suus non fuerit ab avo suo forisfamiliatus 2, etc.

C. 4. Deficientibus autem hiis qui recta linea descendunt, tunc frater vel fratres succedent 3: aut si non reperiantur fratres, vocandae sunt sorores; quibus praemortuis eorum liberi vocantur; post hos vero vocantur avunculi et eorum liberi; postremo materterae vel earum liberi; habita et observata distinctione superius praenotata, inter filios militis et filios sokemanni et nepotes similiter; habita quoque distinctione inter masculos et feminas.

c. 16. Quaeri potest de bastardo, qui nullum haeredem habere potest, nisi de corpore suo habuerit haeredem.

1 As to co-parceners, see below, Chap. V. § 5.

2 It does not appear that Glanvill is here referring to any known process of English law. Probably this expression arises from the association of the doctrines of Roman law with reference to the position of the emancipated son.

3 The Inheritance Act, 1833 (3 and 4 Will. IV, c. 106), has introduced the important alteration in the law of descent that next after lineal descendants the inheritance shall go to the nearest lineal ancestor. This has based the succession of collaterals on a new principle. They now take, not as before directly from the person last seised, but as representing the common ancestor.

§ 7. Alienation.

The following passage shows that in Glanvill's time the conception that a tenant in fee simple might freely alienate his land had not been reached. He can only do so to a certain extent, and for certain purposes. But the restrictions upon alienation, with the exception of the prohibition of wills of land, were not of a feudal character; they are not, as was the case soon after the reign of Henry II, encroachments upon the freedom of the tenant devised by the selfishness and avarice of the lords1. They are the relics of primitive custom antecedent to the growth of feudal ideas.

We have seen that though in Anglo-Saxon times freedom of alienation in the case of bookland was the general rule, this freedom was deemed to depend on the power conferred on the grantee by the charter 2; if there were no evidence of the grant of any such power, the property of the family could not be wholly alienated 3. This passage shows that traces of the old customary law prevailed in the time of Henry II. After this reign questions as to the right of alienation depend not on the duties of the freeholder towards his heir, but on his duties towards his lord. The distinction between the power of alienating the ancient inheritance of the family and the recent acquisition of the tenant is very characteristic of the history of alienation. It is very prominent in the customary law of France.

Lib. vii. c. I. In alia enim acceptione accipitur dos secundum leges Romanas; secundum quas proprie appellatur dos, id quod cum muliere datur viro, quod vulgariter dicitur maritagium. Potest itaque quilibet liber homo, terram habens, quan2 See above, p. 14.

1 See below, Chap. III. § 14.

3 'Si bocland autem habeat, quam ei parentes sui dederint, non mittat eam extra cognationem suam. Leg. Hen. I, 70, § 21; Thorpe, Anc. Laws

and Inst., fol. ed., p. 251.

The property which by Teutonic custom was given by the father of the bride to the husband on her marriage was called faderfioh or faderfeum (father's cattle; see above, p. 32, note). See Laws of Ethelbert, 81;

see below

« PreviousContinue »