[Footnote 402: _Emptor_, a palpably false reading, as the context proves: it should be _venditor_, the vendor. See Bracton 62. a.] If any person sue the Purchaser with respect to a moveable, on the ground that the thing in question was first sold or given to him, or from any other just cause was acquired, unconnected with the imputation of Felony, the same rule may be laid down as that we have mentioned concerning immoveables. But if, under an imputation of Theft,[403] the Purchaser is sued for the thing, he is bound in the clearest manner to remove from himself every such an imputation, or to call a Warrantor.[404] If, therefore, he adopt the latter course, he will name either a certain Warrantor, or an uncertain one. If he call a certain Warrantor to Court, alleging that he desires to have him to Warrant at a reasonable period, then a day is to be given him in Court for that purpose. [Footnote 403: Vide Bracton 150. b. et seq.] [Footnote 404: Vide Mirror c. 3. s. 13. Bracton 151. b. Fleta 55. s. 8. We find that Warrantors were sometimes collusively vouched. Thus, Champions of acknowledged prowess were named, who, being hired for the purpose, readily entered into the Warranty. When such an instance of collusion took place, the Champion was, according to _Bracton_ and _Fleta_, to lose a foot and a hand—but, in _Britton’s_ time, the Champion and the person citing him were both liable to death.] And, if the person called to Warrant appear on that day, and warrant in Court, both the sale and the thing sold to the Purchaser, then, the latter shall be entirely discharged, and that so effectually, that he shall not afterwards sustain any loss. But, if he should fail in entering into the Warranty, then, the Plea shall proceed between the Purchaser and his Warrantor; and thus may it come to the Duel. But, it may be asked, can the Warrantor call another Warrantor into Court? If that be permitted, at what Warrantor must it stop?[405] It should be added, that when any one has so named a Warrantor of a thing which is sued for as stolen, the Warrantor is usually attached by virtue of the following Writ, directed to the Sheriff:— [Footnote 405: The Bodleian and Harleian MSS. say the _fourth_, omitting the mark of interrogation at the end, and leaving the sentence an absolute assertion; which most probably is the true reading, as it corresponds with the Regiam Majestatem. (L. 3. c. 13.)] CHAP. XVI. “The King to the Sheriff, Health. I command you, that justly and without delay, you cause _N._ to be attached, by safe and secure Pledges, that he be before me, or my Justices, on a certain day, to warrant _R._ such a thing which _H._ claims against _R._ as stolen, and of which the aforesaid _R._ has drawn him to warrant in my Court; or to shew wherefore, he ought not to warrant to him. And have there the Summoners and this Writ, &c.” CHAP. XVII.