[Footnote 123: _Escambium_, a term used in Domesday. Sir Edward Coke, in speaking of a warranty, observes, that it is a covenant real, annexed to Lands, whereby a man and his heirs are bound to warrant the same “and to yield other Lands and Tenements (which in old books is called _in Excambio_) to the value of those that shall be evicted by a former title.” (See Co. Litt. 365. a. and 51 b.) It should seem from Bracton, that if the warrantor had not sufficient property to make a full restitution, he was to do so as far as his property extended, and the Tenant was to wait, until better times, for the deficiency. If the Warrantor had no property, he was not, from that circumstance, to be entirely absolved from making restitution, whilst there was any probability of his inheriting property from that person, on account of whom he was called to warrant. On the other hand, he was not bound to warrant the deed of his ancestor, at the expense of any purchase made by himself.—Nor was the recompense to be estimated, beyond the value of the property at the time it was originally warranted.—Nor was one of many warrantors, required to bear the burthen solely, the others being obliged to contribute, (Bracton 394. b. 395. a. See also le Grand Custum. de Norm. c. 50.)] CHAP. II. But it sometimes happens, that the person called to Court to warrant is unwilling to appear there, either for that purpose, or to shew that he ought not to warrant to the Tenant the property in question. In that case, upon the petition of the Tenant, and by the order and indulgence of the Court, the reluctant party shall be compelled to do so, and he shall be summoned by the following Writ. CHAP. III. “The King to the Sheriff, Health. Summon, by good Summoners, _N._ that he be before me, or my Justices, there on a certain day to warrant to _R._ one Hyde of Land, in such a Vill, which he claims as his Gift, or the Gift of _M._ his Father, if he will warrant it to him, or to shew wherefore he ought not to warrant it to him; and have the Summoners and this Writ. Witness Ranuph, &c.” CHAP. IV. On the day appointed, the Warrantor can either essoin himself, or not. If not, then, that indulgence which is allowed to another would be denied him, not being culpable; which would be no less inconvenient than unjust.[124] If he may essoin himself, let us suppose that he has properly essoined himself three times successively, it should on the third day, according to the Law and practice of the Court, be ordered, that he appear on the fourth day, or send an Attorney. If, on that day, he neither appear nor send an Attorney, it seems a question what steps are to be pursued. Because were the Tenement to be taken into the King’s hands, such a step would seem an injustice committed on the right of the Tenant, since he has not been adjudged in default. [Footnote 124: “At the day assigned to the warrantor for appearance, he may essoin himself, or not essoin himself.