Ownership and possession in the early common law

American Journal of Legal History

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 280-313

  Tate, Joshua C ^a  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 46049103990     PISSN: 00029319     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/25434805     Document Type: Review

References (213)

1. On the significance of Henry's reign see PAUL BRAND, "Multis Vigiliis Excogitatam et Inventam": Henry II and the Creation of the English Common Law," in THE MAKING OF THE COMMON LAW 77 (1992).
2. But see JOHN HUDSON, LAND, LAW AND LORDSHIP IN ANGLO-NORMAN ENGLAND 281 (1994) (arguing that the reforms of Henry II were "an acceleration of administrative change, not an unprecedented leap forward").
3. See Joseph Biancalana, For Want of Justice: Legal Reforms of Henry II, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 433 (1988).
4. See id. at 434.
5. See ANDERS WINROTH, THE MAKING OF GRATIAN'S DECRETUM 138-44 (2000).
6. See JANE E. SAYERS, PAPAL JUDGES DELEGATE IN THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY 1198-1254, at 1-5; WINROTH, supra note 4, at 145.
7. H.F. JOLOWICZ & BARRY NICHOLAS, HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF ROMAN LAW 259 (3d. ed. 1972).
8. W.W. BUCKLAND & ARNOLD D. MCNAIR, ROMAN LAW & COMMON LAW: A COMPARISON IN OUTLINE 62 (2d. ed. 1952, rev. F.H. Lawson).
9. D 41.2.12.1.
10. 2 SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW BEFORE THE TIME OF EDWARD I, at 33 (2d. ed. 1968).
11. 2 id.
12. 2 id. at 62.
13. 2 id. at 47.
14. S.F.C. MILSOM, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF ENGLISH FEUDALISM 39-40 (1976).
15. Id. at 71.
16. S.F.C. MILSOM, A NATURAL HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW 1 (2003).
17. Mary Cheney, The Litigation Between John Marshal and Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1164: A Pointer to the Origin of Novel Disseisin? in J.A. GUY & H.G. BEALE EDS., LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN BRITISH HISTORY (1984) at 9, 25-26.
18. Sutherland cited Milsom's introduction to the revised edition of Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, published in 1968.
19. DONALD W. SUTHERLAND, THE ASSIZE OF NOVEL DISSEISIN 22-23 ( 1973).
20. Id. at 23.
21. Id. at 41-42.
22. Mary Cheney, Possessio/proprietas in ecclesiastical courts in mid-twelfth century England, in LAW AND GOVERNMENT IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND AND NORMANDY: ESSAY IN HONOUR OF SIR JAMES HOLT (George Garnett & John Hudson eds., 1994), at 245.
23. 2 POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 9, at 136.
24. An advowson would eventually be classified as an "incorporeal hereditament," or "a right issuing out of a thing corporate." 2 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (1979, facsimile of 1st. ed., 1765-69), vol. 2, 20-21.
25. FRANCIS DE ZULETA & PETER STEIN, THE TEACHING OF ROMAN LAW IN ENGLAND AROUND 1200 (1990), 8 SS Supp. Series at 1 ff.
26. LP.
27. DE ZULETA & STEIN, supra note 24, at xxxiii, xxxvii.
28. Because the Liber Pauperum does not excerpt passages from the Institutes, one may surmise that the former was meant to complement the latter. The purpose of the Liber Pauperum was to allow students to advance from the Institutes to writings contained in the Digest and Code. De Zuleta, 44 SS at li.
29. See W. Senior, Roman Law in England Before Vacarius, 46 LAW Q. REV. 191, 191-92 (1930);
30. Ralph V. Turner, Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton, 15 J. BRIT. STUD. 1, 1 (1975).
31. See Turner, supra note 28, at 2.
32. DE ZULETA & STEIN, supra note 24, at xxii.
33. JOHN OF SALISBURY, Policraticus, viii, 22, in THE STATEMAN'S BOOK OF JOHN OF SALISBURY (John Dickinson ed. and trans. 1963); Turner, supra note 28, at 6.
34. Turner, supra note 28, at 7.
35. W. Senior, Roman Law Mss. in England, 47 LAW Q. REV. 337, 337 (1931).
36. Turner, supra note 28, at 23.
37. See Eleanor Rathbone, Roman Law in the Anglo-Norman Realm, 11 STUDIA GRATIANA 255, 263 (1967) (finding "evidence of some degree of familiarity with the principles and doc trines of Roman law in a fairly wide stratum of the educated class in England about 1180 and of a marked infiltration in court and council by men with specialist knowledge").
38. D. 41.2.12.1 (LP 7.17). See also D. 41.2.17.1 (LP 7.17) (explaining that one can lose possession by intent alone, but ownership can only be lost by an act such as delivery).
39. Inst. 2.1.12 and Lectura gloss to 2.1.17.
40. Inst. 2.1.18 and Lectura gloss.
41. Inst. 2.1.25 and Lectura gloss to 2.1.27.
42. Inst. 2.1.40.
43. Id. 2.1.41.
44. Id.
45. Id. 3.1.ff.
46. Id. 2.6.pr. The three-year period for movables was a reform of Justinian; classical law had provided a one-year usucapion period for movables and two years for immovables. See id.
47. distinguitur causa ex qua solet dominium transferri, Puta ex emptione, permutatione etc. similibus. Distinguitur etiam initium, ut sit iustum. Lectura gloss to 2.6.pr. (trans. Francis de Zuleta & Peter Stein). This allowed property to be acquired in good faith and by normal means from a nonowner, which was not possible under the "natural" means of acquiring ownership.
48. Mala fide uero possessa non minus xxx. annorum spatio adquiruntur. Id.
49. D. 6.1.1 (LP 3.27).
50. Id.; Inst. 4.6.1.
51. D. 6.1.36.pr. (LP 3.27).
52. nota enim actione in rem persequimur quod nostrum est. Nemini enim sua res debetur. Lectura gloss to Inst. 4.6 (trans. Francis de Zuleta & Peter Stein).
53. D. 41.2.1.pr. (LP 7.17).
54. D. 41.2.3.1 (LP 7.17). A gloss on this rubric in the Liber Pauperum distinguishes between civil and corporeal possession: the former can only be lost when someone strong and powerful takes possession and I cannot repel him, while the latter can be lost simply when another takes possession in his own name. LP gloss ad rubricam 7.17.
55. Id.
56. See GIUSEPPE BRINI, POSSESSO DELLE COSE E POSSESSO DEI DIRITTI NEL DIRITTO ROMANO (1978 reprint of 1906 edition), 28-38;
57. see also ENRICO FINZI, IL POSSESSO DEI DIRITTI (1968 reprint of 1915 edition).
58. D. 8.2.20 (LP 3.39); 8.5.10 (LP 3.42).
59. Lectura gloss to Inst. 4.15.
60. Inst. 4.15.pr.
61. D. 6.1.24 (LP 3.27) (Is qui destinavit rem petere animadvertere debet, an aliquo interdicto posit nancisci possessionem, quia longe commodius est ipsum possidere et adversarium ad onera petitoris compellere quam alio possidente petere.)
62. Inst. 4.15.4 (plerumque et fere semper ingens existit contentio de ipsa possessione) (trans. Peter Birks & Grant McLeod).
63. Inst. 4.15.2.
64. Inst. 4.15.3.
65. . . . namque nisi ante exploratum fuerit, utrius eorum possessio sit, non potest petiloria actio institut, quia et civilis et naturalis ratio facit, ut alius possideat, alius a possidente petat. Inst. 4.15.4 (trans. Birks & McLeod).
66. . . . uti possidetis interdicto is vincebat, qui interdicti tempore possidebat, si modo nec vi nec clam nec precario nanctus fuerat ab adversaria possessionem, etiamsi alium vi expulerit aut dam abripuerit alienam possessionem aut precario rogaverat aliquem, ut sibi possidere liceret: utrubi vero interdicto is vincebat, qui maiore parte eius anni nec vi nec clam nec precario ab adversario possidebat. Inst. 4.15.4a. (trans. Birks & McLeod).
67. hodie tamen aliter observatur: nam utriusque interdicti potestas quantum ad possessionem pertinet exaequata est, ut ille vincat et in re soli et in re mobile, qui possessionem nec vi nec clam nec precario ab adversario litis contestationis tempore detinet. Id. (trans. Birks & McLeod).
68. D. 43.17.2 (LP 8.14).
69. Id.; D.43.31.1 (LP 8.28).
70. Ait praetor: 'Uti eas aedes, quibus de agitur, nec vi nec clam nec precario alter ab altero possidetis, quo minus ita possideatis, vim fieri veto.' D. 43.17.1.pr. (LP 8.14) (trans. Fritz Schulz). See FRITZ SCHULZ, CLASSICAL ROMAN LAW § 781 (1951).
71. D. 43.17.1.1 (LP 8.14).
72. LUCIEN MASMEJAN, LA PROTECTION POSSESSOIRE EN DROIT ROMANO-CANONIQUE MEDIEVAL (XIIIE-XVE SIECLES) 261 (1990).
73. Id. at 261-62.
74. hoc interdicto uincit ille qui tempore interdicti possidebat, et competit pro rebus soli. . . . Sed quia maxima oritur questio de iure possessionis, idea necessarium est huiusmodi ordinari ut expressum sit uter agens et uter reus dici debeat. Sed quia frequenter melior solet esse pars possidentis, circa huiusmodi interdicta maxima inter partes solete esse de possessione contentio; uterque namque se possidere defendit. unde uterque actor et uterque defensor esse uidetur. unde etiam, ut in sequenti habetur, duplicia dicuntur huiusmodi interdicta, quia duplicia uidentur partes agere. Lectura gloss to Inst. 4.15.4 (trans. Francis de Zuleta & Peter Stein).
75. Est autem retinende possessionis clam perdue, est etiam prohibitorium quo possessor aduersarium ne sibi possidendi uis fiat proh(ibet). LP gloss ad rubricam 8.14 (Uti possidetis.)
76. Sed hoc interdictum propter uim proditum est; sed illud supra ad uim ulciscendam, hoc autem ad propulsandam pertinet.
77. D. 43.16.1 (LP 8.12).
78. ". . . per quod is qui deiecit cogitur ei restituere possessionem, licet is ab eo qui vi deiecit vi vel clam vel precario possidebat." Inst. 4.15.6.
79. D. 43.16.1.3 (LP 8.12).
80. D. 43.16.1.26 (LP 8.12).
81. D. 6.1.24 (LP 3.27).
82. FRANCESCO RUFFINI, L'ACTIO SPOLII: STUDIO STORICO-GIURIDICO 329, 337 (photo, reprint 1972 (1889).
83. MASMEJAN, supra note 69, at 187-91.
84. 1 POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 9, at 135; 2 id. at 48 n. 1.
85. Id. at 48 n. 1.
86. 2 W.S. HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 204 (3d. ed. 1923).
87. 1 POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 9, at 135.
88. H.G. RICHARDSON AND G.O. SAYLES, SELECT CASES OF PROCEDURE WITHOUT WRIT UNDER HENRY III, AT cxxviii-cxxix (1941).
89. C.2q.1 c.1-6 and C.3q.1 c.1-6.
90. RUFFINI, supra note 79, at 329, 337.
91. Not until the end of the fourteenth century would it be finally settled that laymen as well as churchmen could avail themselves of the condictio ex canone Redintegranda, see MASMEJAN, supra note 69, at 198 (1990), and canonists would argue for centuries over whether the action could be successfully brought against a third party who had received the property in good faith.
92. Id. at 188-94.
93. R.C. VAN CAENEGEM, ROYAL WRITS IN ENGLAND FROM THE CONQUEST TO GLANVILL, at 388 (SS No. 77, 1959) (quoting RUFFINI, supra note 79, at 288).
94. C.2q. 2; C.3q. 1.
95. VAN CAENEGEM. supra note 90, at 368 (listing Gratian's Decretum among books acquired by Lincoln Cathedral circa 1150-58). The principles were also well-known through the False Decretals themselves, which circulated in England as part of "Lanfranc's Collection." Id. at 389 n. 1.
96. Id. at 388-89.
97. 4 LUDWIG WAHRMUND ED., QUELLEN ZUR GESCHICHTE DER RÖMISCH-KANONISCHEN PROCESSES IM MITTELALTER 4-5 (1925).
98. On the date see LINDA FOWLER-MAGERL. ORDINES IUDICIARII AND LIBELLI DE ORDINE IUDICIORUM (FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE TWELFTH TO THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY) 63 (1994).
99. Wabrmund used Vat. lat. 2691. fol. 49r-58v, as one of the manuscripts for his edition. This manuscript is taken to represent the English version of Ricardus' ordo. See http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/1140q-r.htm. Wahrmund gives several alternate readings from this manuscript in the passage devoted to ownership and possession. 2:3 LUDWIG WAHRMUND ED., QUELLEN ZUR GESCHICHTE DER RÖMISCH- KANONISCHEN PROCESSES IM MITTELALTER, 4-6 (1915). The alternate readings do not affect the gist of the passage, which describes separate remedies for ownership and possession, compares the in rem remedy to the Roman vindicatio, and distinguishes between actions for recovering and retaining possession.
100. See Stephan Kuttner & Eleanor Rathbone, Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century: An Introductory Study, 7 TRADITIO 279, 290 (1949-51).
101. See Cheney, supra note 21; see also HUDSON, supra note 1, at 104, 267 (discussing a case recorded in a charter of Archbishop Theobald); Biancalana, supra note 2, at 500-01 (discussing this case and another from the same period).
102. "[O]misso iudicio possessorio, petitorium instituit asserens ecclesiam suam esse et se personam eius a tempore Mauritii bonae memoriae Lond(oniensis) episcopi extitisse. . . ." W.J. MILLOR, S.J. & H.E. BUTLER EDS., THE LETTERS OF JOHN OF SALISBURY (1986 ed., rev. by C.N.L. Brooke) [hereafter LETTERS OF JOHN OF SALISBURY], No. 72. For a discussion of this case see Biancalana, supra note 2, at 501.
103. MARION GIBBS ED., EARLY CHARTERS OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST. PAUL, LONDON No. 163 (1939).
104. E.O. BLAKE ED., LIBER ELIENSIS 352-53 (1962).
105. Hans-Eberhard Lobmarm ed., Collectio Wigorniensis 7.72, in 22 ZEITSCHRIFT DER SAVIGNY-STIFTUNG FÜR RECHTSGESCHICHTE, KANONISTISCHE ABTEILUNG 143-44 (1933).
106. 180 PL, col. 1095 no. 72.
107. Id. col. 1153 no. 127 ("Facta aulem restitutione, si clerici . . . de proprietate agere voluerint . . . causa audiatur. . . .").
108. LETTERS OF JOHN OF SALISBURY, supra note 98, no. 102.
109. Cheney, supra note 21, at 253.
110. A. CHÉDEVILLE ED., LIBER CONTROVERSARIUM SANCTI VINCENTII C ENOMANNENSIS No. 251 (1968) (translation by Mary Cheney, supra note 21, at 250) ("tum quia super sola possessione fiebat, tum quia jam tertio multis laboribus et sumptibus ipsius abbatis producta fiterat").
111. Cheney, supra note 21, at 252.
112. Id. at 247.
113. 2 POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 9, at 47, 62.
114. See VAN CAENEGEM, supra note 90, at 206-21, 413-24 (giving examples); Biancalana, supra note 2, at 442-48.
115. The date and authorship of the treatise are uncertain. It is unlikely to have been written by the royal justiciar Rannulf Glanvill, as was once thought. Internal evidence suggests that it was written between 29 November 1187 and 6 July 1189. See G.D.G. HALL. Introduction to Glanvill.
116. Glanvill XII, 3 [trans. Hall].
117. Id. [trans. Hall].
118. Id. XII, 8 [trans. Hall].
119. Id. XII, 6-7; Biancalana, supra note 2, at 443.
120. Glanvill VI, 7.
121. Biancalana, supra note 2, at 466.
122. Glanvill I, 7.
123. Id. 111-29.
124. Id. IV, 6, p. 46. Glanvill refers to "probos homines," but the champion is usually a single individual in the early plea rolls.
125. Id. III 1-6.
126. Id.
127. J.H. Round, The Date of the Grand Assize, 31 ENG. HIST. REV. 268, 268-69 (1916).
128. Glanvill II, 3, p. 23.
129. Id. II, 11-12, pp. 30-32.
130. See SUTHERLAND, supra note 18, at 35-36.
131. Glanvill XIII, 33.
132. Id. XIII, 38.
133. 1 POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 9, at 145.
134. Pipe Roll 12 Henry II, 4, 7, 10, 14, 65.
135. See SUTHERLAND, supra note 18, at 7-8; see also DORIS M. STENTON, ENGLISH JUSTICE BETWEEN THE NORMAN CONQUEST AND THE GREAT CHARTER 1066-1215, at 39 (1964).
136. S.F.C. MILSOM, HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMON LAW 138-39 (2d. ed. 1981).
137. J.E.A. JOLLIFFE, ANGEVIN KINGSHIP 46-47 (1955).
138. SUTHERLAND, supra note 18, at 17-18; but see Robert C. Palmer, The Origins of Property in England, 3 LAW & HIST. REV. 1. 22 (1985) (suggesting that the assize was "formalized into a standardized writ shortly before 1188").
139. VAN CAENEGEM, supra note 90, at 267-303, 444-464.
140. STENTON, supra note 131, at 33-34.
141. Bracton, f. 164b (trans. Samuel E. Thorne).
142. See supra text accompanying notes 81-82.
143. 2 POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 9, at 46-47.
144. MILSOM, supra note 13, at 14.
145. Id. at 11.
146. Id. at 178.
147. MILSOM, supra note 132, at 128-29.
148. Id. at 129.
149. Robert C. Palmer, The Feudal Framework of English Law, 79 MICH. L. REV. 1143-45 (1981).
150. See Palmer, supra note 134, at 13, 22.
151. MILSOM, supra note 13, at 80-102.
152. Biancalana, supra note 2, at 445-49.
153. MILSOM, supra note 13, at 11.
154. Id. at 12.
155. See 2 RCR 22-23 (Mich. 1199); 3 CRR 133 (Trin. 1204). In order for this plea to work, the defendant had to produce his court; if he did not, judgment would be given for the plaintiff. 3 CRR 161-62 (Trin. 1204); 3 PKJ No. 932 (York 1204); MILSOM, supra note 13, at 13.
156. 1 CRR 86 (Hil. 1199).
157. 1 RCR 422 (Pas./Trin. 1199). This entry says Trim instead of Grim, but it is probably the same defendant. MILSOM, supra note 13, at 18 n. 1.
158. 1 RCR 177 (Herts. 1198) (the assize); 2 CRR 259-60 (Trin. 1203) (the writ de homagio capiendo).
159. 2 CRR 55, 60 (Mich. 1201). The second entry does not mention the land, but both entries are from Hampshire.
160. MILSOM, supra note 13, at 13.
161. Glanvill IX, 11 (tenant against lord); id. IX, 13 (neighbor against neighbor).
162. PAUL BRAND, The Origins of English Land Law: Milsom and After, in THE MAKING OF THE COMMON LAW, supra note 1, at 223.
163. Id.
164. Id.
165. Id. at 222.
166. Id. at 224.
167. Id. at 221.
168. SUTHERLAND, supra note 18. at 31. Even if the assize of novel disseisin and other inventions of Henry II's reign were intended to be a check on seigniorial courts, the imposition of such a check was itself a manifestation of central state authority and an attempt to aggrandize the king's power vis-à-vis that of the intermediate lords. See HUDSON, supra note 1, at 254, 262-71; Biancalana, supra note 2, at 435-36. The phrasing of the writ of novel disseisin laid open the possibility for deciding all land disputes in the king's court, and it is difficult to believe that the dramatic consequences that eventually ensued came as a complete surprise to those who developed the assize. About ten years after the assize of novel disseisin was created, Henry II and his advisers created the assize of mort d'ancestor. This writ was designed for situations where a lord prevented an heir from inheriting land of which his ancestor had been seised. Biancalana, supra note 2, at 484-85. Like the assize of novel disseisin, the assize of mort d'ancestor used a jury of twelve men as its dispute resolution mechanism. Guaranteeing the inheritability of freehold land, the resulting writ was frequently invoked by plaintiffs in the years to come. Another important innovation of the reign of Henry II was the precipe writ of dower, which gave widows who had none of their dower a remedy in the royal courts. Id. at 514. In several different contexts, Henry II and his advisers intervened in matters that had previously been the province of the seigniorial courts, increas-ing the authority of the king and the royal courts while simultaneously strengthening the hand of freeholders against intermediate lords.
169. Cheney, supra note 16.
170. Id. at 16-17 (trans. Cheney).
171. Id. at 24.
172. Cheney, supra note 16, at 19 (citing 2 PAPSTURKUNDEN IN ENGLAND (Walther Holtzmann ed. 1935), nos. 54 (Salisbury), 57 (Chichester), 78 (Exeter, misdated 1153 for 1146)). The special emphasis on recovering lost property in these letters is probably related to the chaos caused by King Stephen's reign, but the duty to recover lost possessions was an ancient canonical duty "impressed upon each prelate at the time of his blessing or consecration." Id. At any time during the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, prelates would have sought to recover land they had once possessed that had fallen into lay hands.
173. Mike Macnair, Vicinage and the Antecedents of the Jury, 17 LAW & HIST. REV. 537, 581-82 (1999).
174. If the assize rolls from the early thirteenth century are any indication, churchmen were more likely to appear in novel disseisin cases as defendants than as plaintiffs. A survey of assize records from six counties (Lincolnshire, Worcestershire, Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire) from the early years of Henry III's reign, edited by the Seiden Society, revealed a total of 598 actions of novel disseisin. Of these, 98, or 16.39%, involved a member of the clergy either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, and 70, or 11.71%, involved a high-ranking clergyman such as an abbot, prior or bishop. Of the total number of novel disseisin cases involving members of the clergy, 61, or 62.24%, were cases in which a member of the clergy was being sued by a layman or laymen, 29, or 29.59%. were cases in which a member of the clergy was suing a layman or laymen, and 8, or 8.16%, were cases with members of the clergy on both sides. The figures are similar if one considers only cases involving high-ranking clergymen: 45, or 64.29%, involved a high-ranking clergyman being sued by a layman or laymen, 29, or 27.14%, involved a high-ranking clergyman suing a layman or laymen, and the remaining 6, or 8.57%, were interclergy disputes. Interestingly, of the actions brought against higher-ranking clergy, the clergy were successful in 30 actions and unsuccessful in only 7.
175. SUTHERLAND, supra note 18, at 22-23.
176. Id. at 23-24.
177. Id. at 22.
178. MILSOM, supra note 15, 1.
179. The discussion that follows focuses on the advowson writs created during the reign of Henry II. It does not consider the writ of quare impedit, which was developed slightly later. On the writ of quare impedit see Joshua C. Tate, The Origins of Quare Impedit, 25 J. LEGAL HIST. 203 (2004).
180. R.C. VAN CAENEGEM ED., ENGLISH LAWSUITS FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I (1991), 107 SS no. 365, p. 328.
181. Id. no. 445, p. 477.
182. Glanvill I. 7, 10; IV; 3-6. One unique element in the procedure for the writ of right of advowson was the taking of the advowson into the king's hand in the event the defendant exhausted all his essoins and still failed to appear. In such a case the sheriff would go to the church and "in the presence of trustworthy men, announce that he has seized the presentation of that church into the hand of the lord king." Id. IV, 5 (trans. Hall).
183. 3 Cone. Lat. c. 17 (1179) = X 3.38.3. Canon 17 of the Third Lateran Council originally provided that, when a legal controversy arose concerning the patronage and no deci sion was arrived at in two months, the bishop would automatically choose the parson himself. Although two months was the time limit expressed by the Council, later canonists referred to three or four months, and four months was the limit referred to when the canon was included in the Compilatio I and the Liber Extra. See PETER LANDAU, JUS PATRONATUS: STUDIEN ZUR ENTWICKLUNG DES PATRONATS IM DEKRETALENRECHT UND DER KANONISTIK DES 12. UND 13. JAHRHUNDERTS 171-72 (1975). More significantly, however, a decretal of Alexander III directed to the bishops and archbishops of England specified that, in a controversy over the patronage, the bishop, six months after the vacancy occurred could himself fill the church. X 3.3 8.22. Canonists offered different explanations for the contradiction between the four-month period of the Council and the six-month period of the decretal. See LANDAU, supra, at 172-73. However, the records of the English royal courts do not refer to two different time limits. The plea rolls do sometimes report that a benefice was filled by the bishop "by authority of the Council (autoritate concilii)" because of a lapse of time. If the time in question is specified, however, it is always said to be six months. See, e.g., 12 CRR no. 379, p. 72 (Hil. 1225) (episcopus . . . quia ecclesia vacavit ultra sex menses, ipse aucloritate concilii illam contulit . . . clerico suo); 14 CRR no. 81, p. 13 (Trin. 1230) (dominus Cantuariensis per lapsum sex mensium contulit ei ecdesiam illam auctoritate concilii); 14 CRR no. 1227, p. 260 (. . . contulit ecclesiam illam . . . ratione concilii post lapsum vi. mensium). The plea rolls leave the impression that the English church interpreted the Third Lateran Council as establishing a six-month time limit for all patronage disputes.
184. Glanvill XIII, pp. 148-70; XIII, 19, p. 161.
185. Id. XIII, 20, p. 161.
186. VAN CAENEGEM, supra note 90, at 332-33; English Lawsuits, 107 SS no. 518. An 1182 entry in the pipe rolls may also refer to the assize of darrein presentment, though it could also refer to the grand assize. Pipe Roll 28 Henry the Second, 83 (1182) ('Radulfus Ferrari is reddit compotum de 10 marcis pro respectu de recognitione cujusdam ecclesie'.).
187. See, e.g., VAN CAENEGEM, supra note 90, at 332.
188. LANDAU, supra note 179, 195-98.
189. Si vero tunc non possidebat ius patronatus, sed tantum credebatur esse patronus, cum tamen non esset, nec possessionem patronatus haberet secundum consuetudinem Anglicanam poterit ab eadem ecclesia removeri. I Comp. 3.33.23 (emphasis added).
190. Id.
191. LANDAU, supra note 179, 196-98 n. 696.
192. Glanvill, XIII, 20, p. 161.
193. Id. IV, 11 (trans. Hall).
194. Id. (trans. Hall).
195. Id.
196. 1 CRR 175 (Trin. 1200).
197. 2 CRR 157 (Hil. 1203).
198. 1 CRR 332 (Mich. 1200).
199. 2 CRR 113 (Mich. 1202), 223, 236 (Pas. 1203).
200. See, e.g., (a) 12 CRR 289 #1423 (Mich. 1225) = 3 BNB 531 #1685 (the assize), and 13 CRR 6 #26 (Pas. 1227) = 2 BNB 201 #248 (the writ of right, with the parties reversed); (b) 13 CRR 377 #1799 (Pas. 1229) (defendant in action of right refers to earlier, successful darrein presentment action brought by his father).
201. When the defendant argued that a church was not vacant, it was a permissible response for the plaintiff to say that the current parson was admitted unjustly and over his appeal. See 3 BNB #1352, p. 328 (Mich. 1217); 3 BNB #1354, p. 330 (Mich. 1217). If the defendant conceded the plaintiff's presentation, however, it was immaterial whether the presentation was unjust. See 11 CRR #1662, p. 331 (Trin. 1224) (defendant concedes that the plaintiff presented the last parson, but says the presentation was unjust; summary judgment for plaintiff).
202. Queri autem potest ab initio utrum aliquid did possit quare assisa ilia remanere debeat. Et potest quidem ad hoc did, scilicet tenenlem ipsum concedere aniecessorem petentis ultimam inde fecisse presentationem sicut uerum dominum et primogenitum heredem, sed postea feodum illud ex quo pendet aduocatio ei uel antecessoribus suis contulisse allquo uero titulo; et ita eo ipso remanet assisa, et placitum super exceptione ipso inter ipsos litigantes deinde esse potent. Glanvill XIII, 20, pp. 161-62.
203. 1 CRR 239 (Trin. 1200).
204. 6 CRR 190-91 (Hil. 1212).
205. See supra text accompanying notes 192-195.
206. Although I have not done a formal count, my estimation is that most cases of darrein presentment were not followed by an action of right.
207. RICHARDSON & SAYLES, supra note 85, at cxxix.
208. The tempore pacis requirement appears in Glanvill IV, 1, p. 44, but not XIII, 19, p. 161, which suggests either that XIII was completed before IV or that there was a clerical error in XIII.
209. Ait praetor: 'Uti eas aedes, quibus de agitur, nec vi nec clam nec precario alter ab altera possidetis, quo minus ita possideatis, vim fieri veto.' D. 43.17.1 .pr. (LP 8.14).
210. This rule is stated plainly in 2 CRR 173 (Hil. 1203) ("alterius jus per cartam sibi datam et non suum jus proprium."); see also 11 CRR no. 121, p. 21 = 3 BNB no. 1578, p. 457 (Hil. 1223) (plaintiff amerced because "loquitur de alieno iure et alterius seisina quam antecessorum suorum"). The rule was not always applied in practice, however. See 1 CRR 471 (Pas. 1201) (plaintiff allowed to bring writ of right on basis of gift); 4 CRR 126 (Pas. 1206) (same); 2 BNB no. 39, pp. 33-35 (Pas.-Trin. 1219) (same).
211. Inst. 2.1.41.
212. SUTHERLAND, supra note 18, at 41-42.
213. MILSOM, supra note 15, at 2.