land were made to turn principally on seisin, protected possession, while the proof of title, which had played an important part in later Anglo-Saxon times, receded, as it were, into the background. Instead of trying to ascertain who the person was who ought to exercise the absolute right of ownership, English courts came to concern themselves with the practical question which of the two litigants had relatively the better right (ius merum) in regard to an estate or tenement. From the feudal point of view an estate held as a fief could be freely parcelled out to under-tenants who would become the vassals of the man holding directly of the lord, provided the obligations of that intermediate tenant were not lessened by such a process. Indeed it was not uncommon for tenants to pass on the onerous duties with which the tenement was charged to these under-tenants, who in such a case were called upon to "defend" the land in regard to the superior lord in order that the mesne (medius, middle) lord should be able to enjoy his tenure in peace. Various complications arose from such subinfeudation in connexion with customary requirements, and it was clearly in the interest of the overlords to restrict such parcelling of fees as much as possible. The English Crown cut short the practice by the statute Quia Emptores, which provided that in future the creation of any new fief would involve not subinfeudation but the recognition by the new tenant of immediate dependence on the overlord: thus the grantee of a new fief was placed on the same level as the grantor instead of being subordinated to him.
The incidents arising out of the double claims to land were manifested in a striking manner in cases when the personnel of the contracting parties was changed, more especially when in consequence of the death of the tenant a new representative of the dominium utile had to come in. While in the case of a Thronfall, as the Germans said, that is, of the demise of the lord, homage and fealty had to be merely renewed, a Lehnfall, the demise of the vassal, brought about a temporary resumption of the fief by the direct owner, i.e. by the lord: as a rule he was bound to regrant the fief to the right heir, but such a reinvestiture was accompanied by a relief, a more or less heavy payment.
The struggle of English barons for reasonable reliefs called forth well-known stipulations of the charters of Henry I and of John. In the case of so-called base holdings the relief had its analogy in the heriot, the surrender to the lord of the best horse or the best ox, and there can be no doubt that this due, which had grown from the custom of surrendering the outfit provided by the lord to his dependent, was originally used quite as much in military fiefs as in villein or socage tenements. In feudal practice, however, the military heriot was absorbed by the relief, while it kept its ground in regard to base tenure.
The resumption of tenancies connected with ecclesiastical offices led, as is well known, to protracted struggles as to rights of investiture between the Church and State. Even when reinvestiture was made dependent on
