42 THE END OF THE NORMAN January de Forz suggested, the county of Chester was not a subject for partition, then on that occasion (in 1232) John the earl would have taken it as a whole and as a preciput, and also none the less his share of the (partible) extraneous lands not in Cheshire, e.g. in the county of Lincoln, &c. But (he said) the earl did not get any of them,* and that must have been because he had received Cheshire as his share of a partition. The reply of de Forz ta this was that he knew nothing about the partition of 1232, but whatever might be said he asked the court to hold that the earl had taken the whole county by virtue of his aesnecia. He further argued that any exchange arranged by the king for the co-heirs' shares in Cheshire should not affect his rights or obstruct his seisin ; it was a matter of private arrangement. To an allegation presumably made by William de Ferrers and D'Aubigny (who intervened, as mentioned, later) that they were nearer in degree (of descent), and that they had an expectant interest on the death of both earls, de Forz pointed out that his wife was the daughter of the eldest sister and had a right to seisin in respect of the aesnecia deriving from Earl John. He further stated (though no evidence is forthcoming) that during the hfe of Ranulph John had been put in seisin of the county and had even taken men's homage and fealty, and that, he said, was why John never formally quitclaimed his share of the extraneous lands. The meaning of this plea seems to be that it was no use arguing that as John got the whole county and nothing else he must have taken it by partition, because John (he said) had got it in effect already ; which destroyed the argument that by getting it by the partition he gave up his right to a share of the outside lands. John de Balliol and his wife formally claimed her share (presumably on account of the king), which should be, they said, a moiety of whatever Christiana her sister received, whether the whole county or a part only, as they were both issue of the eldest sister. At the close of the pleadings the record states that * William de Ferrers and the earl of Aumale, &c.,' put forward their claims, the nature of which is not stated. But it will be remembered their claims in 1237 to a share of the county, on the death of Ranulph, had remained undealt with owing to the death of the earl while the case was pending. It seems probable they were renewing these claims again and were the authors of the argument about an expectancy on the death of both earls mentioned above. Judgement was delivered at Westminster before the king and the magnates whose names have been given, to the following effect : It had always been the custom in England that an inheri- tance descending to sisters was equally divided between them, • He received some knights' fees ; see ante, p. 32.
