Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:39:03.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Actions of Covenant, 1200–1330

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

Joseph Biancalana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article tries to answer two questions about the writ of covenant that have perplexed legal historians. Maitland noticed that the common law courts adopted a requirement that plaintiff produce a writing of the covenant under defendant's seal as proof of the covenant. When and why royal officials adopted this requirement continue to be the chief unanswered questions about covenant. Second, there is the matter of remedy. Some legal historians believe that the remedy in covenant changed from specific performance to damages. But what was the remedy in covenant? Did it change? If so, when and why did it change?

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , Spring 2002 , pp. 1 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2002

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

1. Pollock, Frederick and Maitland, F. W.. The History of English Law Before the Reign of Edward I, 2d ed., reissued with intro. Milsom, S. F. C. (1898; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 2:219–20.Google Scholar

2. Fifoot, C. H. S., History and Sources of the Common Law (London: Stevens and Sons, 1949), 259Google Scholar; Simpson, A. W. B., A History of the Common Law of Contract (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 13–14Google Scholar; Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English History, 3d ed. (London: Butterworths, 1990), 364.Google Scholar

3. Milsom, S. F. C., Historical Foundations of the Common Law, 2d ed. (London: Butterworth's, 1981), 246Google Scholar (“…we are wrong to use the definite article and write of ‘the’ action of covenant”).

4. Statute of Wales, 12 Edw. I, c. 10, 1, Statutes at Large 66 (1284).

5. J. H. Baker, Introduction, 360–62; Milsom, Historical Foundations, 246.

6. Palmer, Robert, English Law in the Age of the Black Death, 1348–1381 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 64.Google Scholar

7. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 216–20 (covenant classified as contract); Baker, Introduction, 360; Ibbetson, David, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 21.Google Scholar

8. David Ibbetson also sees covenant as having had a dual nature: “The new action of covenant occupied an ambiguous niche between the entitlement-based action of debt and the loss-based action of trespass.” Ibbetson, Historical Introduction, 22, 88. There are, however, difficulties with his categories. The difficulties stem from his using entitlement and loss, concepts that operate on different levels, to define the relevant categories. Debt itself occupied an ambiguous niche between entitlement and obligation. And every plaintiff complained that he had suffered a loss or wrong at the hands of defendant. A plaintiff in mort d' ancestor, for example, complained of a loss suffered or a wrong committed to him but mort d'ancestor was not a trespass action. The reason for calling defendant's conduct a wrong to plaintiff and plaintiff's position a legally cognizable loss in mort d'ancestor was plaintiff's entitlement. In trespass, the reason for calling defendant's conduct a wrong and plaintiff's position a legally cognizable loss was the general obligation upon defendant not to harm plaintiff with force and arms against the king's peace. It is therefore better to think in terms of entitlements and obligations than in terms of entitlement and loss.

9. Haas, Elsa de and Hall, G. D. G., eds., Early Registers of Writs, Publications of the Seiden Society, vol. 87 (1970), 79Google Scholar (no. 1539), 232–33 (nos. 533–45).

10. E.g., 8 CRR, pp. 92–93 (Mich. 1219); 9 CRR, pp. 24–25 (Trin. 1220); 11 CRR, no. 1115 (Mich. 1223); 11 CRR, no. 2579 (Mich. 1224); 13 CRR, no. 59 (Pas. 1227).

11. E.g., 11 CRR, no. 1675 (Trin. 1224); 12 CRR, no. 394 (Hil. 1225); 12 CRR, no. 2423 (Pas. 1226); 13 CRR, no. 1745 (Pas. 1229); BNB, no. 638 (Mich. 1231); 15 CRR, no. 437 (Mich. 1233) (defendant attached, not summoned).

12. E.g, 16 CRR, no. 293 (Hil. 1238); 18 CRR, no. 209 (Trin. 1242); KB26/143, m. 10d (Mich. 1250); JUST 1/701, m. 8 (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/365, m. 38 (Kent, 1271); JUST 1/622, m. 23 (Northamptonshire, 1285); JUST 1/408, m. 26 (Lancashire, 1292).

13. For the general suggestion that the writing requirement had something to do with the decline or fictionalization of suit, see Simpson, History, 12–13, and Baker, Introduction, 363.

14. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:217.

15. Ibbetson, David, “Words and Deeds: The Action of Covenant in the Reign of Edward I,” Law and History Review 4 (1986): 83–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Ibbetson, Historical Introduction, 24–28.

17. JUST 1/739, m. 20d (Shropshire, 1292).

18. A case on the Kent eyre of 1241 might be possible evidence against the statement in the text. JUST 1/359, m. 16d (Kent, 1241). Robert de Slegh sued Alexander de Ores for ejecting him from a leasehold Alexander had granted to Robert's brother, Thomas. Defendant entered a denial. There follows a space of about two inches in which the writing is illegible. The next line begins with the court awarding defendant his law. Unfortunately, I could not determine whether defendant denied the covenant or the breach.

19. Failure to acquit: 9 CRR, p. 253 (Mich. 1220); JUST 1/80, m. 3d (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/699, m. 16 (Oxfordshire, 1247); JUST 1/778, m. 41d (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/701, m. 7 (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/701, m. 14d (Oxfordshire, 1261); KB26/171, m. 65d (Mich. 1261); JUST 1/998A, m. 7d (Wiltshire, 1268). Waste: JUST 1/1026, m. 25 (Worcestershire, 1275). Denial of estovers: JUST 1/404, m. 9d (Lancashire, 1246).

20. Shropshire Eyre, no. 119 (1256). The case is discussed below, 11.

21. CP40/81, m. 22d (Hil. 1277).

22. JUST 1/457, m. 17 (Leicestershire, 1284).

23. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:217; Simpson, History, 10. Nichols, F. M., ed., Britton (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1865), 1:416.Google Scholar

24. Baker, Introduction, 337–10, 353–55.

25. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:116–17, 121–22; Richardson, H. G., The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London: Methuen, 1960), 85Google Scholar; Bowers, Richard H., “From Rolls to Riches: King's Clerks and Moneylending in Thirteenth-Century England,” Speculum 58 (1983): 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Hall, G. D. G., ed., Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae Qui Gianvilla Vocatur (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), 126.Google Scholar

27. Sutherland, Donald, The Assize of Novel Disseisin (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973), 12–13, 32–33.Google Scholar

28. Pipe Roll, 22 Henry II 192 (1186); Pipe Roll, 3 Richard I 27 (1191); Pipe Roll, 5 Richard /10(1193) (“pro habende recto de ix m vel de vadio suo”); Pipe Roll, 9 Richard I 98 (bis), 158, 214. Richardson, English Jewry, 112–13.

29. Jenkinson, Hilary, “A Money-Lender's Bonds of the Twelfth Century,” in Davis, H. W. C., ed., Essays in History Presented to Reginald Lane Poole (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1927), 206–7Google Scholar (III), 208–9 (VII).

30. Stacey, Robert C., “Jewish Lending and the Medieval English Economy,” in A Commercialising Economy: England 1086 to c. 1300, ed. Britnell, Richard H. and Campbell, Bruce M. S. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), 92.Google Scholar

31. Simpson, History, 19–20; Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:113–14.

32. E.g., JUST 1/1045, m. 27 (Yorkshire, 1246); KB26/143, m. 4d (Mich. 1250); JUST 1/778, m. 4d (Hampshire, 1256); KB26/171, m. 63 (Mich. 1261); JUST 1/82, m. 15d (Cambridgeshire, 1261); JUST 1/178, m. 23d (Devon, 1265–70); CP40/8, m. 21 (Hil. 1275).

33. Bailey, S. J., “Warranties of Land in the Thirteenth Century,” Cambridge Law Journal 8 (1944): 275–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bailey, S. J., “Warranties of Land in the Reign of Richard I,” Cambridge Law Journal 9 (1946): 193–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. E.g., JUST 1/1045, m. 41 (Yorkshire, 1246); JUST 1/231, m. 9d (Essex, 1248); JUST 1/273, m. 16d (Gloucestershire, 1248); JUST 1/318, m. 2d (Hertfordshire, 1248); KB26/143, m. 4d (Mich. 1250); JUST 1/1046, m. 48 (Yorkshire, 1251–52); JUST 1/361, m. 4 (Kent, 1255); JUST 1/872, m. 9d (Surrey, 1255); JUST 1/778, m. 4d (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/ 82, m. 15d (Cambridgeshire, 1261); KB26/194, m. 8 (Mich. 1269); JUST 1/365, m. 47d (Kent, 1271); CP40/24, m. 25d (Trin. 1278); JUST 1/914, m. 54 (Sussex, 1279); JUST 1/ 1005A, m. 13d (Wiltshire, 1281); JUST 1/622, m. lid (Northamptonshire, 1285); JUST 1/ 1101, m. 32 (Wiltshire, 1289); CP40/110, m. 256d (Mich. 1295); CP40/138, m. 70d (Pas. 1301); CP40/139, m. 169 (Mich. 1301); CP40/163, m. 186 (Trin. 1306); CP40/162, m. 230d (Hil. 1307); CP40/180, m. 156d (Hil. 1310).

35. Milsom, S. F. C., The Legal Framework of English Feudalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 8–35.Google Scholar

36. JUST 1/1045, m. 27 (Yorkshire, 1246); JUST 1/778, m. 38 (Hampshire, 1256) (original lessee was plaintiff's uncle); JUST 1/642, m, 4d (Northumberland, 1256); JUST 1/701. m. 8 (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/365, m. 39 (Kent, 1271); JUST 1/133, m. 7d (Cumberland, 1278–79) (original lessee was plaintiff's brother); CP40/69, m. 151 (Mich. 1287) (original lessee was plaintiff's brother); CP40/80, m. 171 (Mich. 1289); JUST 1/1085, m. 3d (Yorkshire, 1293–94) (original lessee was plaintiff's brother); CP40/144, m. 133d (Mich. 1302); CP40/163, m. 310 (Trin. 1306). In one case, plaintiff claimed under a lease made to his grandfather. 15 CRR, no. 1662 (Pas. 1236).

37. KB26/171, m. 63 (Mich. 1261); JUST 1/622, m. 50d (Northamptonshire, 1285).

38. Thorne, S. E., “English Feudalism and Estates in Land,” Cambridge Law Journal 17 (1959): 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milsom, Legal Framework, 164–76; Biancalana, Joseph, “For Want of Justice: Legal Reforms of Henry II,” Columbia Law Review 88 (1988): 484–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. JUST 1/231, m. 14 (Essex, 1248); JUST 1/361, m. 13 (Kent, 1255); JUST 1/778, m. 10 (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/365, m. 38 (Kent, 1271); CP40/5, m. 80 (Mich. 1274): JUST 1/495, m. 12 (Lincolnshire, 1281–82); CP40/64, m. 77 (Mich. 1286); CP40/153, m. 253 (Mich. 1305).

40. JUST 1/914, m. 7 (Sussex, 1279); JUST 1/1076, m. 31d (Yorkshire, 1279–81); JUST 1/183, m. 10d (Devon, 1281–82); JUST 1/622, m. 7d (Northamptonshire, 1285); CP40/141, m. 168d (Hil. 1302); CP40/161, m. 82 (Trin. 1305); CP40/162, m. 230 (Hil. 1307). In two cases, the defendant, lessor's heir, explained that the lord of the fee had ejected plaintiff and had given the land to the lessor's widow in dower. JUST 1/200, m. 7d (Dorset, 1244); JUST 1/982, m. 15 (Westmoreland, 1278–79).

41. Shropshire Eyre, no. 119 (1256), noted in the text above at note 20.

42. YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. I 456 (Middlesex, 1294); Spark v. Anon., 2 Kent Eyre, 27 SS 44 (1313–14); Wakefield v. Prioress of Hampole, YB Mich. 12 Edw. II, 65 SS 53 (1318); YB Hil. 12 Edw. II, 70 SS 89 (1319).

43. I am grateful to Paul Brand for raising this point in conversation.

44. Sheehan, Michael, The Will in Medieval England from the Commission of the Anglo-Saxons to the End of the Thirteenth Century (Toronto: Pontifical Institute, 1963), 107–19Google Scholar; Donahue, Charles, “What Causes Fundamental Legal Ideas? Marital Property in England and France in the Thirteenth Century,” Michigan Law Review 78 (1980): 72–78Google Scholar; Biancalana, “For Want of Justice,” 512–15 (mort d'ancestor prevented last wills of land and deathbed transfers).

45. 9 CRR, p. 253 (Mich. 1220); 14 CRR, no. 1652, BNB, no. 581 (Trin. 1231); 14 CRR, no. 2437 (Pas. 1232); JUST 1/80, m. 3d (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/ 80, m. 4 (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/231, m. 28d (Essex, 1248); JUST 1/778, m. 41d (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/701, m. 7 (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/701, m. 14d (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/1050, m. 21d (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/787, m. 44d (Hampshire, 1280–81); CP40/158, m. 248d (Hil. 1306). A writ of covenant sometimes used by freeholds in lieu of a writ of mesne. CP40/178, m. 133d (Trin. 1309).

46. For plaints, see 2 RCR, p. 236 (Pas. 1200); 4 CRR, pp. 111–12 (Pas. 1206), 4 CRR, p. 220 (Mich. 1206). For early writs see 4 CRR, p. 93 (Pas. 1206); 7 CRR, pp. 183–84 (Trin. 1214). For later cases see, e.g., 12 CRR, no. 174 (Hil. 1225); 12 CRR, no. 2627 (Pas. 1226); 13 CRR, no. 35 (Pas. 1227); 13 CRR, no. 426 (Hil. 1228); 13 CRR, no. 2744 (Hil. 1230); 14 CRR, no. 1165 (Hil. 1231). The writ apparently had both a precipe and an ostensurus quare form.

47. Warranty of Charter: e.g., 7 CRR, p. 320 (Hil. 1215); 8 CRR, pp. 145 (Mich. 1219); 9 CRR, pp. 75–76 (Trin. 1220); Gloucs., no. 173 (1221); Gloucs., no. 506 (1221); JUST 1/ 1042, m. 23 (Yorkshire, 1231); JUST 1/1042, m. 27d (Yorkshire, 1231), BNB, no. 657 (1231). De fine facto: 7 CRR, p. 269 (Mich. 1214); 8 CRR, pp. 220–21 (Hil. 1220); 14 CRR, no. 644, BNB, no. 447 (Mich. 1230); 14 CRR, no. 1371, BNB, no. 546 (Pas. 1231); 15 CRR, no. 1642 (Pas. 1236); 18 CRR, no. 1147 (Hil. 1244); JUST 1/233, m. 6 (Essex 1254); JUST 1/483, m. 68 (Lincolnshire 1271–72).

48. JUST 1/233, m. 35 (Essex 1254).

49. In a few cases it appears that plaintiff lost for lack of a writing showing that defendant was bound to acquit him. CP40/55, m. 40 (Mich. 1284); CP40/75, m. 99d (Mich. 1288); JUST 1/134, m. 31d (Cumberland, 1292–93). But the record without a report might be misleading. A record of a case in 1287 says that plaintiff lost because he “nichil speciale ostendit” that defendant was bound to acquit him. CP40/69, m. 77d (Mich. 1287). But the report shows Chief Justice Weyland willing to accept an allegation that defendant was seised of the same service from plaintiff that was owed the chief lord. 2 Earliest English Law Reports 298 (1287).

50. JUST 1/1026, m. 19d (Worcestershire, 1275); JUST 1/112, m. 25 (Cornwall, 1284); JUST 1/622, m. 16 (Northamptonshire, 1285); JUST 1/328, m. 20d (Hertfordshire, 1287); JUST 1/134, m. 31 (Cumberland, 1292–93); YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. I 108 (1293); YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. I 480 (Pas. 1307).

51. A case on the Lincolnshire Eyre of 1271–72 might be an exception to the statement in the text. JUST 1/483, m. 17 (Lincolnshire, 1271–72). In this case a widow claimed that she ought to hold seven acres of defendant for her life at a specified rent and that defendant ejected her. She did not plead that defendant demised the land to her or that she had been seised under the demise; she let those facts be inferred from her claim of ejectment. Defendant denied that he had demised the land to her for her life and waged his law. The parties settled. Defendant for himself and his heirs conceded the land to plaintiff and her heirs for 6 shillings per year for all suits of court. The settlement strongly suggests that the case was not about a demise from a life tenant but rather about the services owed by plaintiff. If there had been such an agreement, defendant could, absent a written covenant, wage his law. (For a case in which a lord brought covenant for customs and services, namely suit of court, see JUST 1/175, m. 24 [Devon, 1244].)

52. Actions for rent are, e.g., JUST 1/561, m. 48d (Norfolk, 1280); JUST 1/1050, m. 81 (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/365, m. 55 (Kent, 1271); JUST 1/365, m. 71d (Kent, 1271); JUST 1/802, m. 15d (Staffordshire, 1272); CP40/11, m. 21 (Mich. 1275); JUST 1/148, m. 15d (Derbyshire, 1281); JUST 1/48, m. 18d (Berkshire, 1284); JUST 1/832, m. 32 (Suffolk, 1286–87); CP40/110, m. 180 (Mich. 1295). Actions for damage to the property are, e.g., JUST 1/ 80, m. 24 (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/818, m. 42 (Suffolk, 1240); JUST 1/359, m. 18d (Kent, 1241); JUST 1/872, m. 30 (Surrey, 1255); JUST 1/778, m. 24d (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/82, m. 8 (Cambridgeshire, 1261); JUST 1/495, m. 3d (Lincolnshire, 1281–82); CP40/138, m. 142d (Pas. 1301); CP40/141, m. 168d (Hil. 1302); CP40/144, m. 112 (Mich. 1302); CP40/149, m. 257d (Mich. 1304); CP40/180, m. 305d (Hil. 1310).

53. See, for instance, JUST 1/5, m. 7 (Bedfordshire, 1262); JUST 1/1026, m. 25 (Worcestershire, 1275).

54. By analogy to debt, for which see below, 22 and notes 98–100.

55. Fifoot, History and Sources, 258; Note [Philbin, Patrick], “Proving the Will of Another: The Specialty Requirement in Covenant,” Harvard Law Review 105 (1992): 2005 and n. 35.Google Scholar

56. CP40/149, m. 158 (Mich. 1304).

57. YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 197 (Pas. 1304); BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 10v; LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 27r. I am grateful to Paul Brand for transcriptions of the unpublished reports.

58. One cannot, however, rule out the possibility that the plea roll clerk simply failed to complete the entry.

59. Good suit: BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 10v; LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 27r. Promise to make a writing: YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. 1 197 (Pas. 1304).

60. BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 10v; LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 27r.

61. YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 197 (Pas. 1304). In a second report, Justice Hengham asked defendant whether he claimed by purchase or by inheritance. BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 10v. In the third report Justice Bereford asks that question of defendant. LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 27r.

62. Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 161 (1247); JUST 1/699, m. 13 (Oxfordshire, 1247); JUST 1/ 273, m. 31d (Gloucestershire, 1248).

63. See below, 53–54, and notes 271–76.

64. JUST 1/134, m. 7 (Cumberland, 1292–93).

65. The two printed reports, YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 295 (Trin. 1304) and YB 4 Edw. II, 42 SS 171 (1311) are, as David Ibbetson suspected, reports of the same case. Ibbetson, “Words and Deeds,” 91, n. 102. The plea roll record appears at CP40/149, m. 257d (Mich. 1304) and a third report of the case at BL Add. Ms. 31826, f. 345v.

66. YB (RS) 30–31 Edw. I 310 at 314 (Mich. 1303); YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. I 244 (Trin. 1306); Dammary v. Gorges, YB Pas. 13 Edw. II, 70 SS 107 at 108, 110–11, 112, 112–13 (1319).

67. CP40/149, m. 257d (Mich. 1304).

68. Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I, c. 5, 1 Statutes of the Realm 48 (1278); YB 4 Edw. II, 42 SS 171 at 173 (1311). The statute contemplated actions by the heir, which might not always fit actions against tenants of a term of years. Nevertheless, even in such actions plaintiff's count included the claim that the waste was done to his disinheritance. JUST 1/1046, m. 35 (Yorkshire, 1251–52); JUST 1/148, m. Id (Derbyshire, 1281); CP40/55, m. 37d (Mich. 1284); CP40/64, m. 47d (Mich. 1286); CP40/75, m. 139d (Mich. 1288).

69. The latter point was made by defendant. BL Add. Ms. 31826, f. 345v.

70. In the first half of the century, a lease that mentioned the subject at all was likely to prohibit waste (JUST 1/80, m. 24 [Cambridgeshire and Middlesex], 1235; JUST 1/818, m. 42 [Suffolk, 1240]; JUST 1/872, m. 30 [Surrey, 1255]; CP40/138, m. 142d [Pas. 1301]) or require the lessee to maintain the property at his own cost (13 CRR, no. 997 [Mich. 1228]; JUST 1/778, m. 24d [Hampshire, 1256]; CP40/141, m. 168d [Hil. 1302]). Later, a clause requiring the lessee to return the property in the same state as he had received it seems to have become fairly standard. JUST 1/82, m. 8 (Cambridgeshire, 1261); JUST 1/363, m. lid (Kent, 1262–63); JUST 1/779A, m. 12 (Hampshire, 1272); CP40/11, m. 21 (Mich. 1275); JUST 1/787, m. 36d (Hampshire, 1280–81); JUST 1/495, m. 3d (Lincolnshire, 1281–82); CP40/64, m. 61d (Mich. 1286); CP40/144, m. 112 (Mich. 1302). Alease might, of course, exempt the lessee from liability in the event that buildings were damaged by storms or were already in a dilapidated condition. CP40/110, m. 180 (Mich. 1295). If the covenant had no provision against waste, a lessor had to use a general writ of waste. JUST 1/359, m. 18d (Kent, 1241).

71. BL Add. Ms. 31826, f. 345v.

72. CP40/149, m. 257d (Mich. 1304).

73. This point is made by David Ibbetson. Ibbetson, “Words and Deeds,” 90–91; Ibbetson, Historical Introduction, 26–27'.

74. YB 4 Edw. II, 42 SS 171 at 172 (1311).

75. Ibid, at 173; YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 296 at 298 (Trin. 1304).

76. JUST/408, m. 40 (Lancashire, 1292) (access); CP40/164, m. 113d (Trin. 1307) (access); Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 309 (1247) (enclosure); JUST 1/909A (Sussex, 1248) (enclosure); CP40/144, m. 337d (Mich. 1302) (apportionment).

77. CP40/101, m. 49d (Trin. 1293) (surety); JUST 1/682, m. 102 (Nottinghamshire, 1329–30) (release of prisoner); CP40/110, m. 71 (Mich. 1295) (coparticipant); JUST 1/929, m. 25d (Sussex, 1288) (sea wall).

78. CP40/110, m. 109d (Mich. 1295).

79. Buckland v. Leanore, 2 Kent Eyre, 27 SS 9 (1313–14) (mill); 11 CRR, no. 1675 (Trin. 1224); 12 CRR, no. 1915 (Hil. 1226) (bell tower); Anon., 2 London Eyre 286 (1321) (cartload of hay); JUST 1/23, m. 93 (Bedfordshire, 1330–31) (wound).

80. Bare word: JUST 1/1045, m. 29d (Yorkshire, 1246); JUST 1/56, m. 21d (Buckinghamshire, 1247); Berkshire Eyre, no. 272 (1248); JUST 1/567, m. 53 (Norfolk, 1257). Neither suit nor writing: BNB, no. 1129 (1234); JUST 1/3, m. 6d (Bedfordshire, 1240); JUST 1/359, m. 13d (Kent, 1241). In two cases the clerk combined the two expressions: “Nichil ostendit nisi simplex dictum suum, nee cartam, nee aliquid.” JUST 1/561, m. 37d (Norfolk, 1250); JUST 1/561, m. 51d (Norfolk, 1250). Nothing: JUST 1/872, m. 6 (Surrey, 1255). No suit: JUST 1/979, m. 2d (Westmoreland, 1256).

81. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2: 609–10, 637–;40. For suit as witnesses in dower cases, see Biancalana, Joseph, “Widows at Common Law: The Development of Common Law Dower,” The Irish Jurist, n.s., 23 (1988): 316–22.Google Scholar

82. JUST 1/872, m. 6 (Surrey, 1255).

83. JUST 1/979, m. 2d (Westmoreland, 1256).

84. 12 CRR, no. 495 (Trin. 1225); 16 CRR, no. 1838 (1241); JUST 1/175, m. 32d (Devon, 1244); JUST 1/404, m. 2d (Lancashire, 1246); JUST 1/1045, m. 34d (Yorkshire, 1246); Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 70 (1247); Berkshire Eyre, no. 444 (1248); KB26/172, m. 20d (Pas. 1263); JUST 1/1050, m. 20 (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/483, m. 17 (Lincolnshire, 1271–72).

85. JUST 1/763, m. 31d (Somerset, 1280); JUST 1/408, m. 31d (Lancashire, 1292).

86. JUST 1/60, m. 5d (Buckinghamshire, 1272). In this case defendant disputed the seal. The case was going to be sent to a jury without witnesses to the charter, because all the witnesses were dead. The parties settled. For cases in which the authenticity of a charter was tried by inspection of the seal, see 1 CRR, p. 97 (Hil. 1199); 8 CRR, pp. 54–55 (Mich. 1219); BNB, no. 237 (Hil. 1224); BNB, no. 584 (Trin. 1231); BNB, no. 744 (Hil. 1233). The authenticity of the seal was frequently tried by a jury including witnesses to the charter.

87. E.g., JUST 1/699, m. 10d (Oxfordshire, 1247) (jury finds seal appended “invito” defendant); JUST 1/1085, m. 3d (Yorkshire, 1293–94) (jury agrees with defendant that seal on specialty not defendant's).

88. 12 CRR, no. 2024 (Hil. 1226); 12 CRR, no. 2423, BNB, no. 1739 (Pas. 1226); 17 CRR, no. 2236 (Pas. 1443); CP40/69, m. 105d (Mich. 1287); CP40/110, m. 256d (Mich. 1295). For a few of the many cases in which the authenticity of a charter was tried by witnesses to the charter added to the jury, see, e.g., 1 CRR, p. 45 (Pas. 1198); 1 CRR, pp. 151–52 (Hil. 1200); 5 CRR, p. 277 (Trin. 1208); 11 CRR, no. 1322 (Hil. 1223); BNB, no. 412 (Trin. 1230). The witnesses had to have been at the making of the charter, which was not always the case. BNB, no. 222 (Hil. 1224); BNB, no. 1891 (1227). Attaint would not lie against a jury that included witnesses to a charter. YB (RS) 20–21 Edw. I 108, 111 (Herefordshire, 1292). In at least one case the witnesses alone served as the jury. 6 CRR, p. 61 (Mich. 1210).

89. 9 CRR, p. 253 (Mich. 1220); JUST 1/80, m. 3d (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/404, m. 9d (Lancashire, 1246); JUST 1/699, m. 16 (Oxfordshire, 1247); Berkshire Eyre, no. 450 (1248); JUST 1/909A, m. 16 (Sussex, 1248); JUST 1/778, m. 41d (Hampshire, 1256); KB26/171, m. 30d (Mich. 1261); KB26/171, m. 65d (Mich. 1261); JUST 1/701, m. 7 (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/701, m. 14d (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/998A, m. 7d (Wiltshire, 1268); JUST 1/1026, m. 25 (Worcestershire, 1275).

90. JUST 1/483, m. 17 (Lincolnshire, 1271–72).

91. JUST 1/1026, m. 25 (Worcestershire, 1275).

92. For cases of mesne in which defendant waged his law, see, e.g., 13 CRR, no. 2608, BNB, no. 350 (Hil. 1230); 15 CRR, no. 70, BNB, no. 811 (Mich. 1233); 17 CRR, no. 1770 (Hil. 1243); JUST 1/482, m. 15 (Lincolnshire, 1245); JUST 1/614B, m. 1 Id (Northamptonshire, 1247); JUST 1/7699, m. 31 (Oxfordshire, 1247); JUST 1/561, m. 26d (Norfolk, 1250); JUST 1/872, m. 15 (Surrey, 1255); JUST 1/778, m. 3 (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/701, m. 2d (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/955, m. 1 (Warwickshire, 1272); JUST 1/1005, pt. 1, m. 9 (Wiltshire, 1281); JUST 1/245, m. 63d (Essex 1285); JUST 1/245, m. 70d (Essex, 1285); JUST 1/929, m. 17 (Surrey, 1288).

93. For cases enforcing final concords in which defendant waged his law, see, e.g., 3 CRR, p. 61 (Mich. 1203); 6 CRR, p. 152 (Mich 1211); BNB, no. 1101 (Pas. 1225); 14 CRR, no. 305 (Trin. 1230); 17 CRR, no. 654 (Mich 1242); JUST 1/699, m. 24 (Oxfordshire, 1247); JUST 1/273, m. lid (Gloucestershire, 1248); JUST 1/273, m. 33d (Gloucestershire, 1248); JUST 1/273, m. 34 (Gloucestershire, 1248); JUST 1/1046, m. 33 (Yorkshire, 1251–52); JUST 1/872, m. 69 (Surrey, 1255); JUST 1/872, m. 28d (Surrey, 1255); JUST 1/820, m. 25 (Suffolk, 1257); JUST 1/874, m. 6 (Surrey, 1261–62); JUST 1/57, m. 2d (Buckinghamshire, 1262); JUST 1/877, m. 37 (Surrey, 1279); JUST 1/1067, m. 7d (Yorkshire, 1279–81).

94. For cases of replevin in which defendant waged his law see, e.g., 1 CRR, pp. 146–47 (Hil. 1200); 3 CRR, p. 200 (Mich. 1204); 8 CRR, pp. 28–29 (Mich. 1219); 13 CRR, no. 2113, BNB, no. 333 (Pas. 1229); JUST 1/1046, m. 29 (Yorkshire 1251–52); JUST 1/383, m. 31 (Essex, 1254); JUST 1/701, m. Id (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/483, m. 57 (Lincolnshire, 1271–72).

95. Written grant: 15 CRR, no. 14 (Hil. 1233); JUST 1/1045, m. 12d (Yorkshire, 1246); KB26/169, m. 8 (Mich. 1260); JUST 1/178, m. 12 (Devon, 1269–70); JUST 1/1062, m. 36(1) (Yorkshire, 1279–81); JUST 1/763, m. 18d (Somerset, 1280); JUST 1/787, m. 29 (Hampshire, 1280–81); JUST 1/709, m. 2 (Oxfordshire, 1285); JUST 1/408, m. 27 (Lancashire, 1292). Seisin of rent: JUST 1/912A, m. 14d (Sussex, 1262); JUST 1/178, m. 9d (Devon, 1269–70); JUST 1/178, m. 23d (Devon, 1269–70); CP40/5, m. 27d (Mich. 1274). In a case in 1286, defendant tried to insist that plaintiff produce a “factum speciale” or a “conventionem.” JUST 1/68A, m. 15 (Buckinghamshire, 1286). The parties settled. Plaintiff lost if he had neither suit nor writing nor allegation of seisin. JUST 1/1046, m. 53d (Yorkshire, 1251–52); KB26/165, m. 9 (Pas. 1260); JUST 1/82, m. 19 (Cambridgeshire, 1261); JUST 1/5, m. 15 (Bedfordshire, 1262).

96. JUST 1/778, m. 12d (Hampshire, 1256).

97. In one case defendant denied that the rent was in arrears and the case went to a jury. CP40/11, m. 11 (Mich. 1275). In other cases, in which plaintiff had a writing, defendant lost because he could not produce an acquittance that the rent had been paid. JUST 1/178, m. 12 (Devon, 1269–70); JUST 1/84, m. 5d (Cambridgeshire, 1272); CP40/75, m. 75 (Mich. 1288). In one case, plaintiff demanded an acquittance. JUST 1/763, m. 18d (Somerset, 1280). The parties settled.

98. Cases in which defendant lost because he did not produce suit in support of his claim to have paid the debt are 3 CRR, p. 220 (Mich. 1204); 5 CRR, pp. 25–26 (Hil. 1207); 12 CRR, no. 518 (Trin. 1225); 17 CRR, no. 2395 (Pas. 1243); KB26/143, m. 17 (Mich. 1250); JUST 1/300C, m. 10d (Hereford, 1255); JUST 1/5, m. 20d (Bedfordshire, 1262). The production of suit by defendant to prove payment was probably borrowed from local courts, for which see Henry, Robert, Contracts in the Local Courts of Medieval England (London: Longmans, Green, 1926), 29–30.Google Scholar

99. JUST 1/561, m. 42d (Norfolk, 1250) (plaintiff has writing); JUST 1/778, m. 10d (Hampshire, 1256) (plaintiff has writing); JUST 1/820, m. 22 (Suffolk, 1257); JUST 1/82, m. 3d (Cambridgeshire, 1261) (plaintiff has writing); JUST 1/82, m. d (Cambridgeshire, 1261) (plaintiff has writing); JUST 1/60, m. 14d (Buckinghamshire, 1272); CP40/26, m. 82d (Mich. 1278) (plaintiff has writing).

100. JUST 1/84, m. 7 (Cambridgeshire, 1272); JUST 1/84, m. 1 Id (Cambridgeshire, 1272); JUST 1/779A, m. 19d (Hampshire, 1272); CP40/9, m. 41 (Pas. 1275); CP40/51, m. 21d (Mich. 1283); JUST 1/48, m. 5d (Bedfordshire, 1284); JUST 1/47, m. 13 (Buckinghamshire, 1284); JUST 1/245, m. 69d (Essex, 1285); CP40/64, m. 94d (Mich. 1286); CP40/69, m. 34 (Mich. 1287); CP40/82, m. Hid (Pas. 1290); YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. I 330 (Mich. 1306); YB Mich. 4 Edw. II, 22 SS 145 (1310). An early instance of the court requiring defendant to produce a written acquittance is recorded at JUST 1/954, m. 44 (Warwickshire, 1262).

101. 12 CRR, no.734 (Mich. 1225); 14 CRR, no. 1876, BNB, no. 613 (Trin. 1231) (defendant loses for lack of suit).

102. 8 CRR, pp. 154–55 (Mich. 1219); KB26/195, m. 32d (Mich. 1268).

103. CP40/15, m. 89d (Trin. 1276).

104. JUST 1/483, m. 47d (Lincolnshire, 1271–72); JUST 1/763, m. 53d (Somerset, 1280); JUST 1/832, m. 18d (Suffolk, 1286–87); YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. I (Hil. 1306). Defendant could also make a general denial and put himself on a jury. CP40/153, m. 180 (Mich. 1305). An earlier case of defendant pleading payment and putting himself on a jury is recorded at JUST 1/820, m. 23 (Suffolk, 1257).

105. E.g., JUST 1/238, m. 8 (Essex, 1272); CP40/14, m. 121d (Mich. 1276); JUST 1/914, m. 14 (Sussex, 1279); CP40/54, m. 14 (Trin. 1284); JUST 1/48, m. 5d (Berkshire, 1284); CP40/95, m. 134 (Trin. 1292); CP40/130, m. 246 (Mich. 1299); CP40/139, m. 184 (Mich. 1301); CP40/141, m. 147 (Hil. 1302); YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 14 (Hil. 1304); CP40/152, m. 68 (Trin. 1304); CP40/152, m. 175 (Trin. 1304); CP40/156, m. 136 (Trin. 1305); CP40/153, m. 95 (Mich. 1305); CP40/161, m. 497d (Mich. 1306); CP40/173, m. 219d (Mich. 1308); CP40/173, m. 359 (Mich. 1308); CP40/178, m. 274d (Trin. 1309); CP40/183, m. 73 (Mich. 1310); YB Mich. 12 Edw. II, 65 SS 24 (1318).

106. E.g., 12 CRR, no. 553 (Trin. 1225); 13 CRR, no. 1610 (Hil. 1229); 17 CRR, no. 439 (Mich. 1242); JUST 1/200, m. 3 (Dorset, 1244); JUST 1/233, m. 7 (Essex, 1254); JUST 1/ 872, m. 19d (Surrey, 1255); JUST 1/912B, m. 2d (Sussex, 1262); JUST 1/1050, m. 9d (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/178, m. 8 (Devon, 1269–70).

107. Dunman v. Weldon, The Eyre of Northamptonshire, 1329–1330, ed. Sutherland, Donald, Publications of the Seiden Society, vols. 97, 98 (London; 1981, 1982)Google Scholar, vol. 1, 476 at 477 (1329–30).

108. JUST 1/668, m. 13 (Nottingham, 1280–81); CP40/113, m. 15 (Trin. 1296); CP40/ 152, m. 54 (Trin. 1304); CP40/164, m. 153 (Trin. 1307). Similarly denials that defendant “innullodenarioei teneturoccasionepredicta”: CP40/153, m. 77 (Mich. 1305); CP40/164, m. 74d (Trin. 1307).

109. Defendant denies owing “the aforesaid money” (‘predictam pecuniam”): JUST 1/ 982, m. 10d (Westmoreland, 1278–79); JUST 1/1062, m. 40 (Yorkshire, 1280); CP40/158, m. 192 (Hil. 1307). Defendant denies being bound to plaintiff as alleged: CP40/101, m. 136d (Trin. 1293) (“sicut ei imponitur”); CP40/178, m. 291 (Trin. 1309) (“prout queritur”). Defendant denies “in nullo denario tenetur” CP40/83, m. 135 (Trin. 1290).

110. Walewayn v. Rem, 2 Kent Eyre, 27 SS 38 (1313–14).

111. JUST 1/763, m. 31d (Somerset, 1280); JUST 1/408, m. 31d (Lancashire, 1292).

112. CP40/47, m. 129 (Mich. 1283).

113. JUST 1/457, m. 17 (Leicestershire, 1284).

114. JUST 1/877, m. 18 (Surrey, 1279).

115. JUST 1/403, m. 90d (Lancashire, 1292).

116. Baker, Introduction, 362; Fifoot, History and Sources, 257–58; Milsom, Historical Foundations, 248; Palmer, Robert, The County Courts of Medieval England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 208Google Scholar; Ibbetson, “Words and Deeds,” 71–76; Ibbetson, Historical Introduction, 24; Note [Philbin], “Proving the Will of Another,” 2001.

117. See above, 14–17, and notes 55–75.

118. Robert Palmer suspected that there were two cases but did not sort out the records and reports. Palmer, , “Covenant, Justicies Writs, and Reasonable Showings,” American Journal of Legal History 31 (1987): 103–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

119. YB (RS) 20–21 Edw. I 222 (1292).

120. YB (RS) 20–21 Edw. I 487 (1292).

121. JUST 1/740, m. 34d (Shropshire, 1292); A. Kiralfy, K. A., A Source Book of English Law (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1957), 181Google Scholar; Baker, J. H. and Milsom, S. F. C., Sources of English Legal History, Private Law to 1750 (London: Butterworths, 1986), 282–84.Google Scholar

122. JUST 1/739, m. 35 (Shropshire, 1292).

123. If Richard Sturmy was the same person as Richard Scurrye, one surmises the following transaction. Corbet loaned the horse to Sturmy/Scurrye who, for that reason, entered into the indemnity agreement with Folyot. When the horse died, Corbet sued Sturmy/Scurrye who sued Folyot.

124. Ibbetson, “Words and Deeds,” 79.

125. For the suggestion that this was the reason for the requirement, see Simpson, History, 12.

126. See Simpson, History, 75–80.

127. See Milsom, Historical Foundations, 257–62.

128. For the introduction of trespass writs, see Milsom, S. F. C., “Trespass from Henry III to Edward III,” in Studies in the History of the Common Law (London: Hambledon Press, 1985), 1–90.Google Scholar

129. Biancalana, “For Want of Justice,” 514–31.

130. Biancalana, “Widows at Common Law,” 284–305.

131. Ibid., 318–22.

132. Ibid.

133. Note [Philbin], “Proving the Will of Another,” 2014–20.

134. 2 London Eyre, 86 SS 352 at 353 (1321).

135. Ibid., 286.

136. Cambridge University Library Ms. Ee6, 18, f. 70v.

137. Ibid. Philbin cited BL Add. Ms. 38126, m. 34v, another report of the case the record of which is CP40/136, m. 13d (Hil. 1301).

138. 4 CRR, p. 25 (Trin. 1205); JUST 1/300A, m. 3 (Herefordshire, 1221); KB26/132, m. 9d (Hil. 1244); KB26/149, m. 2 (Trin. 1253); KB26/171, m. 58d (1261); CP40/81, m. 58d (Hil. 1290). Frequently the case went to a jury without the plea roll entry mentioning that suitors were added to the jury. 1 CRR, p. 233 (Trin. 1200); 3 CRR, p. 203 (Mich. 1204); 5 CRR, p. 27 (Hil. 1207); 5 CRR, p. 224 (Trin. 1208); 6 CRR, pp. 37–38 (Pas. 1210); 15 CRR, no. 68, BNB, no. 737 (Hil. 1233); 16 CRR, no. 2069 (Pas. 1242); JUST 1/333, m. 34 (Essex, 1254); JUST 1/82, m. 6d (Cambridgeshire, 1261); CP40/82, m. 7 (Pas. 1290).

139. London v. Tynten, YB Mich. 2 Edw. II, 19 SS 145 (1308–9); Pilsdon v. Pilsdon, YB Trin. 8 Edw. II, 41 SS 182 (1315).

140. KB26/171, m. 58d (1261).

141. BL Add. Ms. 31826, f. 303v. The note does not contemplate plaintiff producing suit in covenant as it does in debt.

142. The view expressed by David Ibbetson that the writing requirement in covenant was “more the result of accident than a product of a piece of conscious law-making” is hard to maintain in light of the evidence of the conscious removal of suit and wager of law from a number of actions in addition to covenant. Ibbetson, Historical Introduction, 24.

143. See above, 20–21, and notes 92–97.

144. See above, 22–24, and notes 98–110.

145. Palmer, County Courts, 229.

146. Ibid., 232–34.

147. Ibid., 234.

148. Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I, c. 8,1 Statutes of the Realm 48 (1278). Palmer, County Courts, 235–38; Beckerman, John, “The Forty-Shilling Jurisdictional Limit in Medieval Personal Actions,” in Legal History Studies 1972, ed. Jenkins, Dafydd (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1975), 110–17Google Scholar; Milšom, Historical Foundations, 244–45.

149. Palmer, County Courts, 251–53.

150. The suggestion in the text reverses the chronology of a suggestion once made by Milsom that the writing requirement in covenant was adopted for the same purpose as the forty-shilling jurisdictional limit: to reduce the influx of cases into the royal courts. Milsom, Historical Foundations, 214. If the writing requirement for all cases of covenant was in place at or before the adoption of the statutory forty-shilling rule, then the forty-shilling rule might not have been extended to covenant because the writing requirement already raised the bar for entry into the royal courts.

151. For a quite different view, see Palmer, County Courts, 198–219; Palmer, “Covenants,” 99–117.

152. Beckerman, John, “Procedural Innovation and Institutional Change in Medieval English Manorial Courts,” Law and History Review 10 (1992): 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

153. JUST 1/231, m. 10d (Essex, 1248).

154. For wager of law by plaintiff in covenant, see above, 22 and notes 101–3.

155. CP40/11, m. 114 (Mich. 1275).

156. CP40/81, m. 48d (Hil. 1290), BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 93v (defendant in detinue ousted from wager of law “quia predictus contractus fuit adeo manifestus”); YB (RS) 20–21 Edw. I 304 (1292); Lewes v. Multon, BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 96v; Aran v. The Abbot of Gloucester, BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 150r., BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 227v: “De contractu dunt pays peut aver pleyne conisance le defendant ne deit pas estre receu a le alayement en contre la syute ararne tot dient acune gent que syute ararne ne amene nul home f orque a la ley.” For later occurrences of the argument, see YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 200 (Pas. 1304); Abbot of Grace Dreu v. Anon, YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. I 331 (1306); Randolph v. The Abbot of Hailes, 2 Kent Eyre 32 (1313–14); Stapleton v. The Abbot of St. Albans, YB Hil. 10 Edw. II, 54 SS 18 and 198 (1317); Beaum v. Kydale, YB Pas. 12 Edw. II, 70 SS 146 at 147 (1319) (Bereford, C.J.).

157. Waste: JUST 1/5, m. 7 (Bedfordshire, 1262); JUST 1/1026, m. 25 (Worcestershire, 1275). Estovers: JUST 1/404, m. 9d (Lancashire, 1246). Conveyance: KB26/171, m. 30d (Mich. 1261). Bell tower: 11 CRR, no. 1675 (Trin. 1224), 12 CRR, no. 1915 (Hil. 1226). Mesne: JUST 1/80, m. 3d (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/778, m. 41d (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/701, m. 7 (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/998A, m. 7d (Wiltshire, 1268). Wager of law in mesne was rather odd. In an action of mesne, defendant could deny that plaintiff had been distrained by a superior lord because of defendant's failure to acquit the tenements of the service owed the superior lord. Defendant's wager of law could not go to whether a third party distrained plaintiff. It had to go to whether defendant had paid a third party the services owed for the tenements. But wager of law proved denials, not assertions, that a party had performed an act. An assertion of an action performed usually required suit or a jury trial. If defendant produced suit, however, plaintiff would not be able to wage his law to deny receipt of the service because plaintiff could not wage his law to deny that a third party had received the services.

158. See above, 19, 20, and notes 84, 89.

159. Ibbetson, Historical Introduction, 25, also observed that plaintiffs in covenant frequently produced written covenants.

160. JUST 1/175, m. 32d (Devon, 1244) (allegation of contract for a grant in fee farm with no term stated); JUST 1/1045, m. 34d (Yorkshire, 1246); Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 70 (1247); Berkshire Eyre, no. 444 (1248).

161. See below, 51, and notes 264–66.

162. 15 CRR, no. 1758 (Pas. 1236); JUST 1/622, m. 23 (Northamptonshire, 1285).

163. 18 CRR, no. 757 (1243–44); JUST 1/56, m. 22d (Buckinghamshire, 1247).

164. HCRR,no. 1115 (Mich. 1223) (plaintiff brings covenant, admits he had been seised by grantor-defendant until disseised by him, and is told to bring novel disseisin).

165. One could claim commons by specialty or as appendant to lands of which the claimant was seised. See YB 2 Edw. II, 17 SS 55 (1308–9); Abbot of Warden v. Cheny and North-brook, YB Trin. 5 Edw. II, 33 SS 146 (1312); Alsop v. Abbot of Burton-Upton-Trent, YB Pas. 7 Edw. II, 39 SS 115 (1314); Charneles v. Parson of Partney, YB Mich. 11 Edw. II, 61 SS 64 (1317).

166. Pleseley v. Spalding, YB Mich. 4 Edw. II, 22 SS 52 (1310); YB Mich. 4 Edw. II, 22 SS 145 (1310); Bere v. Anon. YB Hil. 4 Edw. II, 26 SS 29 (1311).

167. De Donis Conditionalibus, 13 Edw. I, c. 1, 1 Statutes of the Realm, 71–72 (1285).

168. CP40/96, m. 216d (Mich. 1292), BL Add. Ms. 31826, ff. 59–60, BL Harley Ms. 25, ff. 81v–82v.

169. CP40/135, m. 330d (Mich. 1301), BL Stowe Ms. 386, f. 127; YB Mich. 8 Edw. II, 37 SS 204 (1314); YB Hil. 14 Edw. II, f. 424 (1321); YB Hil. 17 Edw. II, f. 526 (1324); YB Mich. 18 Edw. II, f. 571 (1324); YB Trin. 18 Edw. II, f. 621 (1325).

170. 15 CRR, no. 1365 (Hil. 1235).

171. JUST 1/561, m. 51 (Norfolk, 1250). The entry says that plaintiffs proffered “nullum scriptum nec aliquod ostendunt.” Plaintiff had demanded whether plaintiffs “aliquam cartam vel scriptum habeant,” which demand excludes suit.

172. JUST 1/275, m. 34d (Gloucestershire, 1268–69).

173. JUST 1/1050, m. 78 (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/84, m. 8 (Cambridgeshire, 1272).

174. CP40/95, m. 25 (Trin. 1292).

175. It was a good objection to a charter to say that the grantee never had seisin under the charter. E.g., 5 CRR, p. 272 (Trin. 1208); 8 CRR, pp. 7–8 (Mich. 1219); 13 CRR, no. 2073 (Pas. 1229); YB (RS) 20–21 Edw. I 32 (Hereford, 1292); De la Sale v. Bloxham and Miltcombe, YB Mich. 6 Edw. II, 34 SS 35 (1312–13).

176. JUST 1/84, m. 8 (Cambridgeshire, 1272).

177. JUST 1/1045, m. 32 (Yorkshire, 1246).

178. 8 CRR, pp. 92–93 (Mich. 1219); 15 CRR, no. 1365 (Hil. 1235); JUST 1/84, m. 8 (Cambridgeshire, 1272).

179. 1 Early English Law Reports 180 (1284).

180. Milsom, Legal Framework, 30–33, 129.

181. 9 CRR, p. 253 (Mich. 1220); JUST 1/80, ra. 3d (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/701, m. 14d (Oxfordshire, 1261); KB26/171, m. 65d (Mich. 1261); JUST 1/787, m. 44d (Hampshire, 1280–81).

182. JUST 1/80, m. 4 (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235); JUST 1/701, m. 8 (Oxfordshire, 1261); JUST 1/1050, m. 21d (Yorkshire, 1268); YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. I 136 (Hil. 1306).

183. JUST 1/80, m. 4 (Cambridgeshire and Middlesex, 1235).

184. 4 CRR, p. 93 (Pas. 1206); Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 136 (1247); KB26/169, m. 17 (Mich. 1260); JUST 1/5, m. 4d (Bedfordshire, 1262) (sheriff to distrain defendant to acquit plain-tiffin future); JUST 1/363, m. 28d (Kent, 1262–63); JUST 1/1050, m. 15 (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/483, m. 5d (Lincolnshire, 1271–72); JUST 1/238, m. 34 (Essex, 1272); JUST 1/84, m. 10 (Cambridgeshire, 1272); JUST 1/763, m. 15 (Somerset, 1280); JUST 1/325, m. 8 (Hertfordshire, 1287) (sheriff to distrain defendant to acquit plaintiff in future).

185. 12 CRR, no. 2423, BNB, no. 1239 (Pas. 1226); 15 CRR, no. 1662 (Pas. 1236); 17 CRR, no. 1147 (Mich. 1242); JUST 1/1045, m. 41 (Yorkshire, 1246); Berkshire Eyre, no. 9 (1248); JUST 1/231, m. 14 (Essex, 1248); JUST 1/273, m. 16d (Gloucestershire, 1248); JUST 1/318, 2d (Hertfordshire, 1248); Shropshire Eyre, no. 297 (1256); JUST 1/701, m. 8 (Oxfordshire, 1261); KB26/194, m. 8 (Mich. 1269); JUST 1/178, m. 18d (Devon, 1269–70); JUST 1/183, m. 10 (Devon, 1281–82); JUST 1/183, m. 10d (Devon, 1281–82); CP40/49, m. 20 (Pas. 1282); CP40/69, m. 151 (Mich. 1287); JUST 1/408, m. 51 (Lancashire, 1292). BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 233r. In one case, plaintiff received damages although the term had not expired. CP40/144, m. 187d (Mich. 1302). In this case, defendant admitted the lease and the ejectment but disputed only the annual value of the land. The judgment was in accordance with the sheriff's valuation. It might well have been the case that the parties had agreed on damages, in effect defendant lessor buying out the lessee, but could not agree on the amount.

186. JUST 1/701, m. 8 (Oxfordshire, 1261).

187. CP40/11, m. 36 (Mich. 1275); JUST 1/1011, m. 32 (Wiltshire, 1289); CP40/148, m. 143 (Trin. 1303); YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 474 (Pas. 1305). BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 237r.

188. JUST 1/302, m. 46d (Herefordshire, 1292) (lost by judgment); CP40/11, m. 36 (Mich. 1275) (lessor alienated); BL Ms. 31826, f. 233 (sets forth the rules in both the case where the lessor has the land and the case where the lessor has alienated the land).

189. JUST 1/359, m. 24 (Kent, 1241).

190. YB Mich. 7 Edw. III, f. 65, pl. 67 (1333); YB Mich. 47 Edw. III, f. 12, pl. 11 (1373); YB Mich. 47 Edw. III, f. 24, pl. 61 (1373).

191. Early Registers of Writs, 93, 285.

192. BNB, no. 1140 (1235); JUST 1/174, m. 8d (Devon, 1238). For the possible origin of the writ, see Milsom, “Trespass,” 5–6. For later cases, see JUST 1/820, m. 9 (Suffolk, 1257); JUST 1/912A, m. 15 (Sussex, 1262); JUST 1/1050, m. 57 (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/483, m. 52 (Lincolnshire, 1271–72); JUST 1/982, m. 5 (Westmoreland, 1278–79); CP40/ 47, m. 63 (Mich. 1283); JUST 1/956, m. 20 (Wiltshire, 1285); CP40/144, m. 168 (Mich. 1302); CP40/144, m. 299d (Mich. 1302); YB (RS) 30–31 Edw. 1282 (Cornwall, 1302); CP40/ 162, m. 181 (Hil. 1307); CP40/180, m. 99 (Hil. 1310).

193. Early Registers of Writs, xv, n. 2, 93, 285.

194. Thorne, S. E., ed. and trans., Bracton de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968, 1977), 3: 161–62.Google Scholar

195. The relationship between the two writs has been unclear since the fourteenth century. For two attempts to clarify their relationship, see Milsom, “Tresspass,” 5–6, and Arnold, M. S., “Fourteenth Century Promises,” Cambridge Law Journal 35 (1976), 323–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

196. CP40/47, m. 63 (Mich. 1283); YB 4 Edw. II, 42 SS 181 (1310–11); YB Mich. 33 Hen. VI, f. 42, pi. 19 (1454). A note at BL Add. Ms. 31286, f. 235v explains that plaintiff recovers the term unless it has expired, in which case he recovers damages.

197. Bracton, 3: 161–62.

198. Early Registers of Writs, 93, 285.

199. E.g., CP40/11, m. 36 (Mich. 1275); JUST 1/457, m. 7 (Leicestershire, 1284); JUST 1/622, m. 41 (Northamptonshire, 1285); CP40/212A, m. 144 (Mich. 1315).

200. JUST 1/779A, m. 30d (Hampshire, 1272); CP40/5, m. 16d (Mich. 1274); JUST 1/ 1062, m. 28d (Yorkshire, 1281); CP40/64, m. 124d (Mich. 1286).

201. JUST 1/1067, m. 35d (Yorkshire, 1279–81); JUST 1/1005, pt. 1, m. 13d (Wiltshire, 1281).

202. JUST 1/363, m. 25d (Kent, 1262–63); YB Hil. 46 Edw. III, f. 4, pl. 12 (1373).

203. See Milsom, “Trespass,” 4–8.

204. Early Registers of Writs, 241, 285–86.

205. Bracton, 3: 161–62.

206. JUST 1/3, m. 9 (Bedfordshire, 1240).

207. JUST 1/408, m. 90 (Lancashire, 1292).

208. In Brancastre et al. v. Master of Royston, YB Pas. 6 Rie. II 208 (1383), Yearbooks of Richard II: 6 Richard II, ed. Thorne, Samuel, Hager, Michael, Thorne, Margaret, and Donahue, Charles (Cambridge, Mass.: The Ames Foundation, Harvard Law School, 1996).Google Scholar Chief Justice Bereford said that plaintiff in ejectione firme did not recover his term as he would in covenant. Six years later, however, a plaintiff did recover his term. Arnold, “Fourteenth Century Promises,” 325. And so Fairfax thought in 1467. YB Pas. 7 Edw. IV, f. 5, pl. 16 at f. 6 (1467) (per Fairfax).

209. JUST 1/616, m. 3d (Northamptonshire, 1261–62); YB (RS) 30–31 Edw. I 142 (Cornwall, 1302); BLAdd. Ms. 31826, ff. 281 v –282.

210. Berenger v. Barton, YB 4 Edw. II, 42 SS 198 (1310–11).

211. BNB, no. 847 (Pas. 1234).

212. KB26/171, m. 63 (Mich. 1261).

213. Early Registers of Writs, 93.

214. See below, 51, and note 264–66.

215. Warton v. Farnel, YB Pas. 4 Edw. II, 26 SS 148 (1311).

216. 13 CRR, no. 1959 (Pas. 1229); JUST 1/175, m. 15d (Devon, 1238).

217. 13 CRR, no. 1959 (Pas. 1229); CP40/64, m. 109 (Mich. 1286); CP40/149, m. 130 (Mich. 1304).

218. JUST 1/174, m. 15d (Devon, 1238).

219. 2 CRR, pp. 203–1 (Pas. 1203); 10 CRR, pp. 73–75 (Pas. 1221); 18 CRR, no. 710 (1243–44); JUST 1/5, m. 5 (Bedfordshire, 1262); Early Registers of Writs, 239–40. The writ could also be used against the grantor of the wardship. 12 CRR, no. 1844 (Hil. 1226).

220. JUST 1/1046, m. 48 (Yorkshire, 1251–52); JUST 1/408, m. 26 (Lancashire, 1292).

221. 16 CRR, no. 293 (Hil. 1238).

222. JUST 1/929, m. 25d (Sussex, 1288); CP40/110, m. 71 (Mich. 1295); CP40/110, m. 109d (Mich. 1295).

223. JUST 1/929, m. 25d (Sussex, 1288).

224. CP40/110, m. 109d (Mich. 1295).

225. JUST 1/683, m. 102 (Nottinghamshire, 1329–30).

226. 11 CRR, no. 1675 (Trin. 1224), 12 CRR, no. 1915 (Hil. 1226).

227. Buckland v. Leonore, 2 Kent Eyre 9 (1313–14).

228. Pessindenne v. Potter, 2 Kent Eyre 12 (1313–14).

229. Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 61 (1247); JUST 1/82, m. 8 (Cambridgeshire, 1261); JUST 1/363, m. 8 (Kent, 1262–63); CP40/138, m. 142d (Pas. 1301). In one case the court awarded damages for defendant-lessee's failure to acquit plaintiff-lessor against creditors and for his failure to work the land. JUST 1/82, m. 9d (Cambridgeshire, 1261).

230. JUST 1/561, m. 48d (Norfolk, 1250); JUST 1/822, m. 32 (Suffolk, 1286–87).

231. JUST 1/68A, m. 10 (Buckinghamshire, 1286).

232. E.g., BNB, no. 946 (Pas. 1224); CP40/19, m. 16d (Pas. 1277); JUST 1/323, m. 30 (Hertfordshire, 1278); JUST 1/1062, m. 40 (Yorkshire, 1279–81); CP40/75, m. 166 (Mich. 1288); JUST 1/302, m. 14 (Herefordshire, 1292); CP40/179, m. 262d (Mich. 1309).

233. See Dunham, W. H., ed., The Casus Piacitorum and Reports of Cases in the King's Court, 1272–1278, Publications of the Seiden Society, vol. 69 (1950), 41Google Scholar (if lessee dies within term or term expires debt is the proper writ).

234. JUST 1/818, m. 40d (Suffolk, 1240); 17 CRR, no. 1318 (Hil. 1243); 17 CRR, no. 2029 (Pas. 1443); JUST 1/361, m. 13 (Kent, 1255); JUST 1/82, m. 9d (Cambridgeshire, 1261).

235. Waugh, Scott, “Tenure to Contract: Lordship and Clientage in Thirteenth-Century England,” English Historical Review 101 (1986): 830, n. 2.Google Scholar

236. JUST 1/361, m. 5 (Kent, 1255).

237. JUST 1/818, m. 40d (Suffolk, 1240); 17 CRR, no. 2029 (Pas. 1443).

238. 17 CRR, no. 1318 (Hil. 1243).

239. Defendant to writ of annuity denies arrears and court awards payment of arrears to the date of judgment: JUST 1/482, m. 23 (Lincolnshire, 1245); KB26/169, m. 8 (Mich. 1260); JUST 1/178, m. 12 (Devon, 1269–70); JUST 1/84, m. 5d (Cambridgeshire, 1272); CP40/11, m. 11 (Mich. 1275); JUST 1/1062, m. 18 (Yorkshire, 1279–81); CP40/75, m. 75 (Mich. 1288); JUST 1/408, m. 27 (Lancashire, 1292); YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. 1410 (Middlesex, 1294); YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. 1406 (Hil. 1307). See Henkeston v. Gosfield, YB Mich. 3 Edw. II, 19 SS 125 (1309). Defendant denies annuity and court orders that plaintiff is to have seisin of the rent plus arrears and damages. JUST 1/482, m. 28 (Lincolnshire, 1245); KB 26/169, m. 67d (Mich. 1260); JUST 1/912A, m. 13 (Sussex, 1262); JUST 1/912A, m. 14d (Sussex, 1262); JUST 1/1050, m. 20d (Yorkshire, 1268); JUST 1/178, m. 9d (Devon, 1269–70); JUST 1/178, m. 23d (Devon, 1269–70); JUST 1/238, m. 4 (Essex, 1272); CP40/8, m. 12d (Hil. 1275).

240. CP40/75, m. 166 (Mich. 1288); YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. I 34 (1293); YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. I 110 (1293); Gerwyn v. Barton, 2 Kent Eyre 28 (1313–14); 2 Kent Eyre 33 (1313–14); LeGros v. Histon, 2 London Eyre 243 (1321).

241. YB Mich. 10 Edw. II, 52 SS 156 (1316).

242. 18 CRR, no. 1756 (Mich. 1245); JUST 1/318, m. 28 (Hertfordshire, 1248); JUST 1/ 1046, m. 23d (Yorkshire, 1251–52); JUST 1/872, m. 6 (Surrey, 1256); JUST 1/718, m. 16 (Hampshire, 1256); JUST 1/82, m. Id (Cambridgeshire, 1261); JUST 1/365, m. 88 (Kent, 1271); CP40/15, m. 89d (Trin. 1276); CP40/19, m. 39 (Pas. 1277); JUST 1/323, m. 11 (Hertfordshire, 1278); JUST 1/914, m. 6 (Sussex, 1279); JUST 1/763, m. 31d (Somerset, 1280); JUST 1/1005, pt. 1, m. 90 (Wiltshire, 1281); CP40/153, m. 436 (Mich. 1305).

243. But the writ of annuity could also be used to recover an annual rent in kind. E.g., JUST 1/538, m. Id (Middlesex, 1274); CP40/110, m. 28 (Mich. 1295); CP40/121, m. 55 (1297).

244. JUST 1/778, m. 16 (Hampshire, 1256); CP40/19, m. 39 (Pas. 1277).

245. JUST 1/914, m. 6 (Sussex, 1279); JUST 1/1005, pt. 1, m. 90 (Wiltshire, 1281).

246. JUST 1/318, m. 28 (Hertfordshire, 1248).

247. Plaintiffs produced writings in many cases of annuity including the following: JUST 1/787, m. 29 (Hampshire, 1280–81); JUST 1/709, m. 2 (Oxfordshire, 1285); CP40/75, m. 75 (Mich. 1288); CP40/93, m. 19 (Pas. 1292); JUST 1/408, m. 27 (Lancashire, 1292). Plaintiff relied on seisin in the following cases: JUST 1/361, m. 14 (Kent, 1255); JUST 1/912A, m. 14d (Sussex, 1262); CP40/8, m. 12d (Hil. 1275); YB (RS) 33–35 Edw. 1478 (Pas. 1307). A note in 1294 said that plaintiff could either produce a writing or plead that defendant was seised of plaintiff's homage. YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. I 514 (Middlesex, 1294). Whether plaintiff's allegation that he had been seised of the annuity was sufficient was debated in JUST 1/68A, m. 15 (Buckinghamshire, 1286) without judgment rendered on the point. According to one school of thought that emerged in the 1280s, plaintiff had to proffer a writing. 1 Earliest English Law Reports 144 at 145 (1284) (Brompton, J.).

248. YB Mich. 4 Edw. III, f. 57, pl. 5 (1331), 7 Edw. III, f. 65, pl. 67 (1334).

249. Ibid.

250. See above, 35–38, and notes 160–79.

251. JUST 1/818, m. 7 (Suffolk, 1240); JUST 1/359, m. 24 (Kent, 1241); JUST 1/1045, m. 34d (Yorkshire, 1246); Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 70 (1247); Berkshire Eyre, no. 444 (1248); JUST 1/561, m. 32 (Norfolk, 1250); JUST 1/561, m. 51 (Norfolk, 1250); JUST 1/872, m. 19 (Surrey, 1255); JUST 1/998A, m. 19d (Wiltshire, 1268); JUST 1/483, m. 17 (Lincolnshire, 1271–72).

252. JUST 1/709, m. 1 1d (Oxfordshire, 1285).

253. 17CRR, no. 853(1242).

254. JUST 1/359, m. 24 (Kent, 1241).

255. Bedfordshire Eyre, no. 382 (1247).

256. Statute of Wales, 12 Edw. I, c. 10, 1 Statutes of the Realm 66 (1284).

257. JUST 1/622, m. 23 (Northamptonshire, 1285).

258. JUST 1/709, m. 11d (Oxfordshire, 1285).

259. JUST 1/408, m. 61 (Lancashire, 1292).

260. JUST 1/275, m. 34d (Gloucestershire, 1268–69).

261. 15 CRR, no. 1365 (Hil. 1235). So the case was read in Note [Philbin], “Proving the Will of Another,” 2003–4.

262. Turner, G. J. and Plucknett, T. F. T., eds., Brevia Piacitata, Publications of the Seiden Society, vol. 66 (1947), 204.Google Scholar

263. JUST 1/1063, m. 1I (Yorkshire, 1279–81); 1 Earliest English Law Reports 180, CP40/55, m. 90 (Mich. 1284).

264. a) JUST 1/982, m. 24d (Westmoreland, 1278–79); JUST 1/622, m. 3 (Northamptonshire, 1285); JUST 1/622, m. 23 (Northamptonshire, 1285); CP40/80, m. 71 (Mich. 1289) (plaintiff may not recover freehold because writ of covenant is “breve de trangressione”); JUST 1/134, m. 7 (Cumberland, 1292–93); YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. I 182 (1293); YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. 1 494 (Middlesex, 1294). BL Add. Ms. 31826, ff. 235v, 303v.

b) In the following cases the argument appears in the reports but not in the records. CP40/ 144, m. 337d (Mich. 1302), LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 35r, BLHargrave Ms. 375, f. 76v, BL Harley Ms. 25, f. 198v;CP40/149, m. 158 (Mich. 1304), YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 199–201; LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 27r; BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 10v; CP40/158, m. 157 (Hil. 1306), LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 47r, BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 138r, BL Harley Ms. 25, f. 197r; CP40/162, m. 195 (Hil. 1307), BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 178r; BL Harley Ms. 35, f. 197v. I am grateful to Paul Brand for providing me with transcriptions of all the above cited unpublished reports.

265. JUST 1/982, m. 24d (Westmoreland, 1278–79).

266. JUST 1/622, m. 3 (Northamptonshire, 1285); JUST 1/622, m. 23 (Northamptonshire, 1285); JUST 1/134, m. 7 (Cumberland, 1292), BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 324; BL Add. Ms. 31826, f. 235v.

267. JUST 1/622, m. 3 (Northamptonshire, 1285).

268. JUST 1/709, m. 1ld (Oxfordshire, 1285).

269. YB (RS) 21–22 Edw. I 598 (1294).

270. The four cases are cited above in note 264, b). The search of the plea rolls for the Court of Common Pleas covered the following plea rolls: CP40/138 (Pas. 1301); CP40/139 (Trin. 1301); CP40/141 (Hil. 1302); CP40/144 (Mich. 1302); CP40/148 (Trin. 1303); CP40/ 145 (Mich. 1303); CP40/152 (Trin. 1304); CP40/149 (Mich. 1304); CP40/155 (Pas. 1305); CP40/156 (Trin. 1305); CP40/153 (Mich. 1305); CP40/158 (Hil. 1306); CP40/159 (Pas. 1306); CP40/163 (Trin. 1306); CP40/161 (Mich. 1306); CP40/162 (Hil. 1307); CP40/164 (Trin. 1307); CP40/173 (Mich. 1308); CP40/178 (Trin. 1309); CP40/179 (Mich. 1309); CP40/ 180 (Hil. 1310); CP40/183 (Mich. 1310). The plea rolls CP40/140 (Mich. 1301) and CP40/ 168 (Mich. 1307) were unfit for production.

271. JUST 1/134, m. 7 (Cumberland, 1292–93). This case is discussed in Ibbetson, “Words and Deeds,” 74.

272. BL Ms. Harley 25, f. 197v.

273. For lords demanding entry fines after Quia Emptores until 1315, see Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism, 1215–1540 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968), 88–92.Google Scholar

274. CP40/149, m. 158 (Mich. 1304), YB (RS) 32–33 Edw. I 199–201, LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 27r, BL Hargrave 375, f. 10v. The case is discussed above, 14–15.

275. JUST 1/739, m. 18 (Shropshire, 1292), BLAdd. Ms. 31826, f. 324. This case is discussed in Ibbetson, “Words and Deeds,” 74.

276. YB (RS) 22–22 Edw. I 494 (Middlesex, 1294).

277. CP40/144, m. 337d (1302), LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 35r, BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 76v, BL Harley Ms. 25, f. 198v.

278. CP40/95, m. 25 (Trin. 1292).

279. CP40/162, m. 195 (Hil. 1307), BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 178v.

280. YB Pas. 18 Edw. II, f. 602 (1325).

281. Statute of Marlborough, 52 Hen. III, c. 6, 1 Statutes of the Realm 20–21 (1267). The statute prohibited terms of years at no rent until the time when the child was likely to be of age and then at a rent so high that no one would want to hold them at the stated rent.

282. CP40/158, m. 157 (Hil. 1306), YB 33–35 Edw. I 139 (Hil. 1306); LI Misc. Ms. 738, f. 47r, BL Hargrave Ms. 375, f. 138r, BL Harley Ms. 25, f. 197r.

283. Barbour, W. T., “The History of Contract in Early English Equity,” in Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914), 4: 120–23.Google Scholar

284. The authorities on conditional bonds are Simpson, A. W. B., “The Penal Bond with Conditional Defeasance,” in Legal Theory and Legal History (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), 111–114Google Scholar; Simpson, History, 90–126; Palmer, English Law, 62–91.

285. JUST 1/802, m. 33d (Staffordshire, 1272). Later cases are CP40/80, m. 71 (Mich. 1289); CP40/153, m. 133 (Mich. 1305).

286. JUST 1/375, m. 82 (Kent, 1293–94).

287. CP40/75, m. 38d (Mich. 1288).

288. CP40/121, m. 295–295d (Mich. 1297); CP40/158, m. 188d (Hil. 1306).

289. CP40/183, m. 308d (Mich. 1310).

290. JUST 1/622, m. 52d (Northamptonshire, 1285).

291. CP40/145, m. 142 (Mich. 1303).

292. Hotot v. Rychemund, YB Mich. 4 Edw. II, 22 SS 199 (1310).

293. Glanvill, 126.