367/1 Hill v. Ellard, 3 Salk. 279. Cf. Withers v. Iseham, Dyer, 70 a, 70 b, 71 a; Gateward's Case, 6 Co. Rep. 59b, 60b; Y.B. 20 & 21 Ed. I 426; 205; 12 Hen. IV. 7. 368/1 Doe v. Barnard, 13 Q.B.945, 952, 953, per Cur., Patteson, J. Cf. Asher v. Whitlock, L.R. 1 Q.B.1, 3, 6, 7. 368/2 See, further, Sawyer v. Kendall, 10 Cush. 241; 2 Bl. Comm. 263 et seq.; 3 Ch. Pl. 1119 (6th Am. ed.); 3 Kent, 444, 445; Angell, Limitations, ch. 31, Section 413. Of course if a right had already been acquired before the disseisin different considerations would apply. If the right claimed is one of those which are regarded as incident to land, as explained in the following Lecture, the disseisor will have it. Jenk. Cent. 12, First Cent. Case 21. 370/1 Ared v. Watkin, Cro. Eliz. 637; S.C., ib. 651. Cf. Y.B. 5 Hen. VII. 18, pl. 12; Dyer, 4 b, n. (4). 370/2 Roe v. Hayley, 12 East, 464, 470 (1810). 371/1 Boyer v. Rivet, 3 Bulstr. 317, 321. 372/1 Essays in A. S. Law, 219. 372/2 "Per medium," Bracton, fol. 37b, Section10 ad fin. 374/1 Bract., fol. 17 b. Cf. Fleta, III. c. 14, Section 6. 374/2 See, further, Middlemore v. Goodale, Cro. Car. 503, stated infra, p. 379. 374/3 See also Bract., fol. 380 b, 381. "Et quod de haeredibus dicitur, idem dici poterit de assignatis .... Et quod assignatis fieri debet warrantia per modum donationis: probatur in itinere W. de Ralegh in Com. Warr. circa finem rotuli, et hoc maxime, si primus dominus capitalis, et primus feoffator, ceperit homagium et servitium assignati." Cf. Fleta, VI. Section 6; Moore, 93, pl. 230; Sheph. Touchst. 199, 200. As to the reason which led to the mention of assigns, cf. Bract., fol. 20 b, Section 1; 1 Britt. (Nich.), 223, 312. 375/1 I do not stop to inquire whether this was due to the statute of Quia Emptores, by which the assign was made to hold directly of the first grantor, or whether some other explanation must be found. Cf. Bract., fol. 37 b; c. 14, Sections 6, 11; VI. c. 28, Section 4; 1 Britton (Nich.), 256, [100 b]. 375/2 Fleta, III. c. 14, Section 6, fol. 197; 1 Britton (Nich.), 223, 233, 244, 255, 312; Co. Lit. 384 b; Y.B. 20 Ed. I. 232; Abbr. Placit., fol. 308, 2d col., Dunelm, rot. 43; Y.B. 14 Hen. IV. 5, 6. 377/1 Fol. 67 a; cf. 54 a. 377/2 Fol. 381; supra, p. 874, n. 3. 378/1 Cf. Pincombe v. Rudge, Hobart, 3; Bro. Warrantia Carte, pl. 8; S.C., Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 14, pl. 5. 378/2 Y.B. 50 Ed. III. 12b & 13. 378/3 Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14, per Belknap, arguendo. 378/4 Noke v. Awder, Cro. Eliz. 373; S.C., ib. 436. Cf. Lewis v. Campbell, 8 Taunt. 715; S.C., 3 J. B. Moore, 35. 379/1 Middlemore v. Goodale, Cro. Car. 503; S.C., ib. 505, Sir William Jones, 406. 379/2 Harper v. Bird, T. Jones, 102 (Pasch. 30 Car. II.). These cases show an order of development parallel to the history of the assignment of other contracts not negotiable. 380/1 Andrew v. Pearce, 4 Bos. & Pul. 158 (1805). 383/1 Austin, Jurisprudence, II. p. 842 (3d ed.).