MAXIMS OF THE LAW. 195 



observed, which cannot agree with the diversities of autho 

 rities, then this rule faileth. 



As if three coparceners be, and one of them alien her 

 purparty, the feoftee and one of the sisters cannot join in a 

 writ de part facienda, because it behoveth the feoffee to Vide i Instit. 

 mention the statute in his writ. 166 - b - 



REGULA XXV. 



Pr&sentia corporis tollit errorem nominis, et veritas nominis 

 tollit errorem demomtrationis. 



THERE be three degrees of certainty. 



1. Presence. 



2. Name. 



3. Demonstration or reference. 



Whereof the presence the law holdeth of greatest dig 

 nity, the name in the second degree, and the demonstra 

 tion or reference in the lowest, and always the error or 

 falsity in the less worthy. 



And therefore if I give a horse to I. D. being present, 

 and say unto him, I. S. take this, this is a good gift, not 

 withstanding I call him by a wrong name : but so had it 

 not been if I had delivered him to a stranger to the use of 

 I. S. where I meant I. D. 



So if I say unto I. S. Here I give you my ring with the 

 ruby, and deliver it with my hand, and the ring bear a 

 diamond and no ruby, this is a good gift notwithstanding 

 I name it amiss. 



So had it been if by word or writing, without the delivery 

 of the thing itself, I had given the ring with the ruby, 

 although I had no such, but only one with a diamond, 

 which I meant, yet it would have passed. 



So if I by deed grant unto you, by general words, all 

 the lands that the king hath passed unto me by letters 

 patents, dated 10 May, unto this present indenture annexed, 

 and the patent annexed have date 10 July, yet if it be 

 proved that that was the true patent annexed, the presence 

 of the patent maketh the error of the date recited not ma 

 terial ; yet if no patent had been annexed, and there had 

 been also no other certainty given, but the reference of the 

 patent, the date whereof was misrecited, although I had 

 no other patent ever of the king, yet nothing would have 

 passed. 



Like law is it, but more doubtful, where there is not a 

 presence, but a kind of representation, which is less worthy 



