The Writs of Dower and Chapter 49 of Westminster I*

Joseph Biancalana

doi:10.1017/S0008197300106919

The Writs of Dower and Chapter 49 of Westminster I*

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009

Joseph Biancalana

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

The growth of royal justice in England consisted in part in the development of writs to begin proceedings in royal, county, or seignorial court. In the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries the King's court seldom created entirely new substantive rules and entitlements. Rather, the growth of royal justice consisted in the reinstitutionalisation of customary norms and entitlements in the legal mechanism of royal government. The available writs and the rules governing their use—especially writs which began proceedings directly in the King's court—constituted the structure of royal justice in that they determined which norms and entitlements would be shaped in the King's court and would have the power and authority of royal government behind them. Bracton's ideal that there ought to be a writ for every case requiring a remedy motivated the proliferation of royal writs—both the creation of new writs and the division of existing writs into two or more variants—from the forty-five writs found in Glanvill (1187–9) to the 886 writs found in an early fourteenth-century register of writs. Each new writ brought a new social situation within the ken of royal government or changed the terms in which royal government recognised and enforced social norms. The division of a single writ into two or more variants meant a refinement of the legal structure. Changes in the rules governing the use of a writ also changed the interaction between royal government and social life. The reinstitutionalisation of customary norms and entitlements created additional subjects for argument. In addition to the customary norms as recognised in the King's court, persons could also argue about the writs and rules of the King's court itself. Substantive issues could thus be suppressed and transposed into procedural issues that deter-mined the boundaries to the royal judicial power to affirm and to effectuate customary norms. In 1176, the King asserted royal jurisdiction over the customary entitlement known as dower. This essay traces the development of the writs of dower from their creation to Chapter 49 of the Statute of Westminster I (1275), which changed the rule for using thepraecipe writ of dower.

Type: Articles
Information: The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 91 - 116

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300106919 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 91 note 1} For the concept of reinstitutionalisation see Bonhannon, P., “The Differing Realms of the Law” in Law and Warfare 43, 45–50 (P. Bonhannon, ed. 1967)Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 2} 4 Bracton 289. Glanvill contains seventy-five writs, thirty of which are writs of process and did not begin actions. A Bodleian Register “R” in Early Registers of Writs 108–311.

^{page 92 note 3} Biancalana, J., “For Want of Justice: Legal Reforms of Henry II” 88 Colum. Law Rev. 433, 516–518 (1988)Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 4} The pioneering work of Plucknett, T.F.T., Statutes and Their Interpretation in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century (1922)Google Scholar and Legislation of Edward I (1949), needs to be followed by scholarship using the plea rolls, yearbook manuscripts, and non-legal sources.

^{page 92 note 5} Glanvill 61, 66.

^{page 92 note 6} Id. at 60.

^{page 92 note 7} Id. at 61, 139. For an example of a dower case ordered into the king's court by a writ of pone see 6 C.R.R. 16. A dower case in county court was not properly before the itinerant justices unless plaintiff brought a writ of pone. JUST. 1/275, m.28d. But a defendant could let the case go forward without insisting on a writ of pone. JUST. 1/1042, m.2d.

^{page 92 note 8} Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, 179–180 (W. Stubbs, ed., 9th ed., 1913) (cited as “Select Charters”); Biancalana, supra note 3, at 516–518.

^{page 92 note 9} 2 Chronicon Monasterü de Abingdon 202–203 (J. Stevenson, ed., Rolls Series, 1858).

^{page 92 note 10} Glanvill 60, 136, 140.

^{page 93 note 11} Id. 60.

^{page 93 note 12} Id. at 65–66.

^{page 93 note 13} Biancalana, supra note 3, at 533–534.

^{page 93 note 14} Glanvill 66.

^{page 93 note 15} 1 P.K.J., Nos. 3495, 3511, 3543.

^{page 93 note 16} E.g., 1 C.R.R. 151; 1 C.R.R. 160; 1 C.R.R. 166.

^{page 93 note 17} Early Registers of Writs 7–8, 30, 82, 345; 3 Bracton 357–358; Radulphi de Hengham Summae 55–56 (W.H. Dunham, ed. 1931); Brevia Placitata 5, 45, 130 (G. Turner, ed., Selden Soc'y, vol. 66, 1947) (cited as “Brevia Placitata”), B.L. Add. Ms. 8167, f.113; B.L. Add. Ms. 31826, f.307; B.L. Add. Ms. 25005, f.71; B.L. Add. Ms. 35179, f.77d; B.L. Add. Ms. 38821, f.20; B.L. Harley Ms. 323, f.69v; B.L. Harley Ms. 716, f.73–73v; B.L. Cotton Ms. Julius D II, f.145v.

^{page 94 note 18} 10 C.R.R. 324–325.

^{page 94 note 19} 11 C.R.R. Nos. 1479, 1978.

^{page 94 note 20} Thus in some cases the pleadings focused on the parent's consent not to the endowment but to the marriage. 14 C.R.R., No. 1909; 14 C.R.R., No. 2147; C.U.L., Ms. LI 4.18 ff.206v–207v.

^{page 94 note 21} Glanvill 68.

^{page 94 note 22} See Biancalana, supra note 3, at 521–527.

^{page 95 note 23} Early Registers of Writs 8. For the dating of this register of writs see Brand, P., “Ireland and the Literature of the Early Common Law” (1981)Google Scholar 16 Irish Jurist 95, 100–106. B.L. Add. Ms. 25005, f.71v; B.L. Add. Ms. 35179, f.77v; B.L. Add. Ms. 38, 821, f.20v; B.L. Harley Ms. 323, f.69v; B.L. Cotton Ms. Julius DII, M45v.

^{page 95 note 24} K.B. 26/171, m.34.

^{page 95 note 25} Glanvill 59, 61, 67. Biancalana, supra note 3, at 531–533.

^{page 95 note 26} 6 C.R.R. 121, 149, 186, 218, 203.

^{page 95 note 27} 6 C.R.R. 141; 7 C.R.R. 33, 95; 7 C.R.R. 126.

^{page 95 note 28} Select Charters, supra note 8, at 341.

^{page 95 note 29} 3 Bracton 358.

^{page 95 note 30} Id.

^{page 96 note 31} 15 C.R.R., No. 1855. Later exceptions that plaintiff failed to use the unde nichil habet writ for nominated dower are JUST. 1/1046, m.71, JUST. 1/1050, m.65, and K.B. 26/145, m.12d.

^{page 96 note 32} Early Registers of Writs 8.

^{page 96 note 33} Biancalana, supra note 3, at 521–522.

^{page 97 note 34} 7 C.R.R. 110, 176.

^{page 97 note 35} 7 C.R.R. 99.

^{page 98 note 36} 9 C.R.R. 231.

^{page 98 note 37} E.g. 8 C.R.R. 200; B.N.B. 83; 10 C.R.R., 238; 10 C.R.R., 245; 14 C.R.R., No. 361; Lines, and worcs., No. 1030.

^{page 98 note 38} 10 C.R.R. 196; 10 C.R.R. 239–240; 10 C.R.R. 343; K.B. 26/202, m.26d; K.B. 26/173, m.9d; C.P. 40/7, m.41 also recorded on C.P. 40/8, m.39d; C.P. 40/7, m.44 also recorded on C.P. 40/8, m.42.

^{page 98 note 39} 9 C.R.R. 181.

^{page 98 note 40} 8 C.R.R. 260–261, B.N.B., No. 101.

^{page 98 note 41} “El quia talis usus est quod non respondeant ad huiusmodi brevia, consideration est quod non respondeat ad hoc breve.”

^{page 99 note 42} B.N.B., No. 101, “Exceptio contra dotem unde nichil habet etc. et responsio quod nichil habet in tali villa, non valet, quia haberi debet respectus ad dotem et non ad villam.”

^{page 99 note 43} 3 Bracton 397.

^{page 99 note 44} Thomas Basset appears as the lord of Colynton in 1195. Pipe Rolls, 7 Richard, 125. Richard I was said to have given Colynton to Thomas Basset at the request of Thomas' uncle Walter Dunstanvill. Book of Fees 96. In 1242–43, Walter Dunstanvill was recorded as tenant-in-chief of Colynton and Reginald de Vautort as his tenant in right of his wife Alice, daughter of Thomas Basset. Book of Fees 782; Sanders, I.J., English Baronies (1968), pp. 51–52Google Scholar who says that Reginald Vautort was married to Thomas Basset's daughter Joan. It seems that what might have been intended as a wardship in Thomas Basset became a permanent tenancy with a resulting dispute over the lordship.

^{page 99 note 45} 8 C.R.R. 104; 8 C.R.R. 218, 322–323; 8 C.R.R. 298–299; 8 C.R.R. 351; 8 C.R.R. 386–387; 9 C.R.R. 299; 9 C.R.R. 99; 9 C.R.R. 320; 9 C.R.R. 321; 10 C.R.R. 210; 11 C.R.R., No. 1491; 12 C.R.R., No. 1462; 12 C.R.R., No. 2218; 13 C.R.R., No. 1315; 13 C.R.R., No. 2218; 14 C.R.R., No. 33; 14 C.R.R., No. 168; 16 C.R.R., No. 1994; K.B. 26/169, m.19d; K.B. 26/169, m.40; K.B. 26/173, m.9d; K.B. 26/202, m.26d; JUST. 1/178, m.19; JUST. 1/178, m.28d; JUST. 1/300A, m.3; JUST. 1/404, m.6; JUST. 1/483, m.21d; JUST. 1/567, m.55; JUST. 1/695, 18d; JUST. 1/699, m.12d; JUST. 1/699, m.21; JUST. 1/775, m.6; JUST. 1/912A, m.22; JUST. 1/1050, m.24d; C.P. 40/3, m.32d also C.P. 40/4, m.35d.

^{page 99 note 46} Select Charters, supra note 8, at 297.

^{page 99 note 47} Clanchy, M., “Magna Carta, Clause 34”, 79 E.H.R. 542 (1964)Google Scholar; Hurnard, N., “Magna Carta, Clause Thirty-Four,” in Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, ed. Hunt, R., Pantin, W., and Southern, R. (1948), p. 166Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 48} 7 C.R.R. 305; JUST. 1/482, m.29d; JUST. 1/1046, m.26d; JUST. 1/1062, m.54d; K.B. 26/123, m.22d; K.B. 26/124, m.19; K.B. 26/128, m.3d; K.B. 26/130, m.7d; K.B. 26/130, m.21; K.B. 26/132, m.8d; K.B. 26/180, m.16d. One case of this type brought on a writ of right was JUST. 1/642, m.3d.

^{page 100 note 49} Close Rolls, 1234–1237, 337.

^{page 100 note 50} E.g. 2 C.R.R. 135; 8 C.R.R. 195; 12 C.R.R., No. 347; 16 C.R.R., No. 197; 16 C.R.R., Nos. 320, 321.

^{page 101 note 51} K.B. 26/132, m.8d.

^{page 101 note 52} C.P. 40/81, m.lOlv. Isabel widow of Robert de Horblyng claimed one third of 1 messuage, 14 tofts, 14 bovates, 240 acres of land, 100 acres of meadow and ten pounds in rent in Horbling, as dower by praecipe writ against Anselm de Graham and his wife Margaret. Defendants answered that they had assigned plaintiff ten acres in dower in the same vill. Plaintiff replied that “quedam praelocutio facta fuit inter eos de dote sua,” but that she had never received any land in dower. That issue was given to a jury.

^{page 101 note 53} JUST. 1/1062, m.55. Other cases of partial assignment of dower under an agreement for full assignment are C.P. 40/5, m.18 and B.L. Add. Ms. 31826, f.374.

^{page 101 note 54} 3 C.R.R. 71; 3 C.R.R. 73; 5 C.R.R. 230. Earliest Northamptonshire Assize Rolls, No. 478 (D. Stenton, ed., Northants. Rec. Soc'y, vol. 5, 1930).

^{page 101 note 55} 16 C.R.R., No. 1408.

^{page 101 note 56} B.L. Add. Ms. 31826, f.374. I am grateful to Paul Brand for bringing this passage to my attention.

^{page 102 note 57} 3 Bracton 396–397.

^{page 102 note 58} Id.

^{page 102 note 59} 7 C.R.R. 305; 13 C.R.R., No. 1118; 14 C.R.R., No. 369; 14 C.R.R., No. 387; 15 C.R.R., No. 282; 15 C.R.R., No. 335; 16 C.R.R., No. 196; 16 C.R.R., No. 730; 16 C.R.R., No. 1150. In one case brought on a writ of right plaintiff said that she had received dower from persons named in her writ. 15 C.R.R., No. 458.

^{page 102 note 60} 3 Bracton 396–397.

^{page 103 note 61} JUST. 1/699, m.12d; JUST. 1/699, m.16. But see JUST. 1/178, m.28d; JUST. 1/567, m.55; JUST. 1/699, m.21, and JUST. 1/912A, m.22 where defendant excepts to writ without referring to the time when plaintiff sued out her writ. For an early (1214), exceptional case in which defendant focused on the time when plaintiff sued out her writ, see 7 C.R.R. 110.

^{page 103 note 62} K.B. 26/169, m.19d; K.B. 26/173, m.9d; K.B. 26/176, m.11; K.B. 26/180, m.18(l); K.B. 26/211, m.18; JUST. 1/178, m.19; JUST. 1/483, m.21d; JUST. 1/1022, m.3; C.P. 40/3, m.32d also C.P. 40/4, m.35d; C.P. 40/81, m.lOld; 2 Button 277 (F.M. Nichols, ed., 1865) (cited as “Britton”); 4 Fleta 25 (G.O. Sayles, ed., Selden Soc'y, vol. 99,1983) (cited as “Fleta”).

^{page 103 note 63} JUST. 1/404, m.6.

^{page 103 note 64} 1 Statutes of the Realm 38. “En bref de Douayre dont dame riens nad, mes ne seit le bref abatu par exception del tenaunt, por ceo que ele avera receu son douayre de autre houme avaunt son bref pwchace; sil ne puisse mostrier que ele eyt receu partie de douayre de li mesme e en mesme la vile avaunt son bref pwchace.”

^{page 103 note 65} B.L. Add. Ms. 31826, f.374.

^{page 104 note 66} C.P. 40/20, m.10d.

^{page 104 note 67} C.P. 40/20, m.22. Sara, widow of Henry Poston, sued John Tieve and his wife Agnes for one third of two messuages and three acres in Bridhaltersley, Bedfordshire. Defendants excepted that plaintiff was receiving an annual rent of twelve pence by their order as dower in the tenements named in her writ. Plaintiff replicated that the rent was not from the tenements named in her writ. On that issue, the case went to a jury. The point was whether rent elsewhere had been substituted for plaintiff's share of the tenements in Bridhaltersley. C.P. 40/20, m.21. Agatha, widow of Simon Olf, sued Simon's son, Richard, for one half of one messuage and two and one half acres in the suburb of Norwich. Defendant excepted that plaintiff had received from defendant three roods in the suburb of Norwich as dower. Plaintiff denied having received the land as dower. On that issue, the case went to a jury. Later cases in which defendant made the statutory exception are JUST. 1/1062, m.4, C.P. 40/83, m.109 and C.P. 40/95, m.6.

^{page 104 note 68} B.L. Add. Ms. 31826, f.371v.

^{page 104 note 69} Meke v. Norfolk, 1 Year Books of Edward II 99 (F.W. Maitland, ed., Selden Soc'y, Vol. 17, 1903).

^{page 104 note 70} B.L. Add. Ms. 35116, f.142v.

^{page 105 note 71} 4 Bracton 284.

^{page 105 note 72} Maitland, F.W., The Forms of Action at Common Law (1936)Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 73} 4 Bracton 284.

^{page 105 note 74} Milsom, S.F.C., The Legal Framework of English Feudalism (1976), pp. 2, 66, 99, 128Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 75} C.P. 40/5, m.8.

^{page 106 note 76} C.P. 40/20, m.7d; C.P. 40/20, m.17; C.P. 40/20, m.19d; C.P. 40/20, m.27d; C.P. 40/69, m.21d; C.P. 40/82, m.89; C.P. 40/92, m.140; B.L. Add. Ms. 35116, f.131.

^{page 106 note 77} C.P. 40/50, m.52.

^{page 106 note 78} JUST. 1/1062, m.34; C.P. 40/11, m.97Cd; C.P. 40/18, m.8d; C.P. 40/20, m.l; C.P. 40/21, m.57d; C.P. 40/34, m.64; C.P. 40/36, m.59; C.P. 40/39, m.l; C.P. 40/48, m.27; C.P. 40/49, m.l; C.P. 40/50, m.52; C.P. 40/58, m.41; C.P. 40/60, m.79; C.P. 40/69, m.21d; C.P. 40/69, m.H6d; C.P. 40/81, m.112; C.P. 40/93, m.21; C.P. 40/93, m.32; C.P. 40/95, m.8; C.P. 40/107, m.100v.

^{page 106 note 79} Occasionally before the statute the justices had the parties agree that an exception to plaintiff's writ would be treated as an exception to plaintiff's action against defendant. E.g., KB. 26/176, m.11; JUST. 1/699, m.16d; JUST. 1/699, m.21. The issue for the jury was whether plaintiff had accepted some land in dower. Plaintiff agreed that if the jury found against her, she would lose not only her writ but her action against defendant as well. Defendant agreed that if the jury found against him, he would forego making additional answers and plaintiff would recover the lands she claimed in dower.

^{page 107 note 80} Milsom has suggested that writs of right for nominated dower and for dower assensu patris “must have existed in theory, though they may have fallen into disuse”. Novae Narrationes cviii Eds. S.F.C. Milsom and E. Shanks (Selden Soc'y, Vol. 80, 1963) (cited as “Novae Narrationes”).

^{page 107 note 81} B.L. Add. Ms. 31826, f.307.

^{page 107 note 82} Id.; Close Rolls, 1234–7, 337–338.

^{page 108 note 83} K.B. 26/147B, m.15d.

^{page 108 note 84} JUST. 1/567, m.42 and 42d.

^{page 108 note 85} Id.: “in huiusmodi casu de dolacione de assensu patris vel alicuius antecessoris provision esl certum breve per totum regnum. …”

^{page 109 note 86} B.L. Add. Ms. 35116, f.138.

^{page 110 note 87} 2 Britton, supra note 62, at 255.

^{page 110 note 88} JUST. 1/695, m.18d.

^{page 110 note 89} I have been able to find only two earlier cases: a case of nominated dower in 1220, 8 C.R.R. 200, B.N.B., Ho. 83, and a case of dower assensu patris in 1221, JUST. 1/300A, m.3.

^{page 110 note 90} Brevia Placitata, supra note 17, at 74–75 and for the dating see xx-xxi.

^{page 111 note 91} Glanvill 61.

^{page 111 note 92} Biancalana, supra note 3, at 525–526.

^{page 111 note 93} P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, E 40/11348. The writ is addressed to Henry son of Walter and reads: “Precipimus tibi quod sine dilacione plenum rectum teneas Philipo Boydyn et Juliane uxori eius de tercia pane unius virgale lerre cum pertinenciis in Alveston [Warwickshire] quam clamunt tenere de te in dotem ipsius Juliane per liberum servicium tercie partis duodecim denarium per annum pro omni servicio. Quam prior de Wirecestre eis deforciat. Et nisi feceris vicecomes Wan' facial ne amplius inde clamorem audiamus pro defectu recti. Teste me ipso apud Westm' xii die octobris anno r.r. xxiiii.”

^{page 111 note 94} Glanvill 60.

^{page 111 note 95} Bracton supposed that nominated dower would be designated in the fee of a single lord. 2 Bracton 269.

^{page 112 note 96} 1 R.C.R. 373; 2 R.C.R. 264; 2 C.R.R. 262; 3 C.R.R. 249; 4 C.R.R. 8–9; 4 C.R.R. 26; 4 C.R.R. 133; 4 C.R.R. 256; 5 C.R.R. 118, 206, 274–5; 7 C.R.R. 202; 12 C.R.R. 612; 12 C.R.R., No. 732.

^{page 112 note 97} 2 R.C.R. 261; 9 C.R.R. 71–2; B.N.B., No. 1396; 14 C.R.R., No. 1412; B.N.B., No. 558; 14 C.R.R., No. 1419.

^{page 112 note 98} 1 R.C.R. 11–12; 1 C.R.R. 260–1, 369; 3 C.R.R. 131; 5 C.R.R. 230; 7 C.R.R. 339. See 7 C.R.R. 71.

^{page 112 note 99} 2 C.R.R. 309.

^{page 112 note 1} 7 C.R.R. 295.

^{page 112 note 2} 1 R.C.R. 359–60; 2 C.R.R. 64; 3 C.R.R. 54; 3 C.R.R. 153–154; 15 C.R.R., Ho. 1378; 16 C.R.R., No. 1079.

^{page 112 note 3} Early Registers of Writs 35–36, 111–112.

^{page 112 note 4} JUST. 1/84, m.24d; JUST. 1 1/175, m.28d; JUST. 1/178, m.9d; JUST. 1/178, m.22; JUST. 1/233, m.13d; JUST. 1/234, m.8d; JUST. 1/238, m.16d; JUST. 1/275, m.7d; JUST. 1/483, m.15d; JUST. 1/642, m.3d; JUST. 1/763, m.lld; JUST. 1/763, m.35; JUST. 1/912A, m.32d; JUST. 1/1022, m.7; JUST. 1/1042, m.2d; JUST. 1/1046, m.10; JUST. 1/1050, m.27d; JUST. V1050, m.47; JUST. 1/1050, m.49; JUST. 1/1050, m.67d; K.B. 26/143, m.2d; K.B. 26/148, m.17d; K.B. 26/176, m.l; C.P. 40/5, m.6; C.P. 40/5, m.38d; C.P. 40/8, m.44. For the use of the writ of right appurtenant see 15 C.R.R., No. 53, K.B. 132, m.5d and JUST. 1/1046, m.53. And for the use of the writ of right “esse de rationabili dote sua” see 15 C.R.R., No. 1378 and 16 C.R.R., No. 1079.

^{page 112 note 5} Early Registers of Writs 34–35; B.L. Add. Ms. 35179, f.74.

^{page 113 note 6} Early Registers of Writs 34–35; B.L. Add. Ms. 35179, f.74.

^{page 113 note 7} Early Registers of Writs 36; B.L. Add. Ms. 35179, f.74d.

^{page 113 note 8} 15 C.R.R., No. 1378; 16 C.R.R., No. 1079; C.P. 40/92, m.174.

^{page 113 note 9} Early Registers of Writs 111–112.

^{page 113 note 10} E.g. C.P. 40/92, m.174 (“esse de rationabili dote sua”).

^{page 113 note 11} C.P. 40/11, m.29. Emma, widow of Geoffrey Tedmaish, sued John Tedmarsh for her dower in Tedmarsh, Berkshire, “per breve de recto patens”. John answered that he had claimed his court from county court before Emma brought her writ of pone. Emma might have been driven to her writ of right. C.P. 40/11, m.71v. Margery, widow of Alexander Luterel, claimed dower in two vills from Andrew Luterel ”per breve de recto patens”. The dispute was whether the King's escheator had assigned Margery land in one of the two vills for all of her dower or for the dower due her from the lands of which her husband had died seised. It would seem that Margery could have brought a praecipe writ. C.P. 40/60, m.36d. Joan, widow of Thomas, sued for her dower from William son of Thomas “per breve in recto”. William answered that he had assigned Joan dower in four other vills “pro omni dote sua”. It would seem that Joan could have used a praecipe writ.

^{page 113 note 12} Britton, supra note 62, at 292 and at 255–256, 291. Milsom has puzzled over these three cases in his introduction to the Novae Narrationes. Novae Narrationes, supra note 80, at cv-cvi.

^{page 113 note 13} 3 Bracton 400; 2 Britton, supra note 62, at 291; 4 Fleta, supra note 62, 93–4. See Milsom's Introduction to Novae Narrationes, supra note 80, at cv-cvi.

^{page 114 note 14} JUST. 1/273, m.27.

^{page 114 note 15} JUST. 1/560, m.58; C.P. 40/92, m.174.

^{page 114 note 16} Pipe Rolls, 23 Henry II, 171; Rolls of the King's Court in the Reign of King Richard the First 40, 43 (F.W. Maitland, ed. Pipe Roll Soc'y, vol. 14, 1891); 1 R.C.R. 154; 1 C.R.R. 320–21; 3 C.R.R. 315–316; 2 C.R.R. 287; 3 C.R.R. 345; 5 C.R.R. 65; 16 C.R.R., No. 1175; JUST. 1/178, m.3; JUST. 1/483, m.39d; JUST. 1/820, tn.7; JUST. 1/1050, m.82.

^{page 114 note 17} 15 C.R.R., No. 183; JUST. 1/998A, m.19. The rule is stated in 2 Britton, supra note 62, at 255.

^{page 114 note 18} JUST. 1/1050, m.24d.

^{page 114 note 19} 1 C.R.R. 88; 1 C.R.R. 98; 2 C.R.R. 5; 2 C.R.R. 101; 4 C.R.R. 292; 5 C.R.R. 26; 5 C.R.R. 191; 6 C.R.R. 34–35; JUST. 1/238, m.12d; JUST. 1/238, m.13d; JUST. 1/912A, m.9. By analogy to mort d'ancestor the same rule applied to the writs of ael and cosinage. JUST. 1/178, m.17; JUST. 1/1062, m.5d; JUST. 1/1062, m.6; JUST. 1/1062, m.16d; JUST. 1/1062, m.18.

^{page 114 note 20} For the creation of the dower writs see Biancalana, supra note 3, at 514–518. For the creation of the assize of mort d'ancestor see Pollock, F. and Maitland, F.W., 1 The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (2nd ed. 1923), pp. 147–148Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 21} There are at least two reports of the case: Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the First, Years XXXII-XXXIII 256–259 (A. Horwood, ed., Rolls. Soc'y, 1864) and B.L. Add. Ms. 31826, f.355.

Article contents

The Writs of Dower and Chapter 49 of Westminster I*

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests