Enfeoffment versus Uses

Dear All -



There is one point I would like to pass on, a correction. I would not
pretend to be able to determine how the estates of the Countess should have
devolved. But I do know that "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of
the "use," which is the earliest form of what developed into the concept of
"trust."



Here is the definition of "enfeoffment" from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enfeoffment



[Enfeoffment:]

Also known as feoffment. Complete surrender and transfer of all land
ownership rights from one person to another. In old English Law
<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> , an enfeoffment
was a transfer of property by which the new owner was given both the right
to sell the land and the right to pass it on to heirs, evidenced by livery
of seisin, a ceremony for transferring the possession of real property from
one individual to another.



And here is the entry from the same site for the Statute of Uses, which was
passed during Fat Harry's reign (1535) -



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statute+of+Uses+Act+1535



[Statute of Uses]

An <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> English Law
enacted in 1535 to end the practice of creating uses in real property by
changing the purely equitable title of those entitled to a use into absolute
ownership with the right of possession.

The Statute of Uses was a radical statute forced through a recalcitrant
English Parliament in 1535 by a willful King Henry VIII. Essentially, the
statute eliminated a sleight of hand that had been fashioned by landholders
to avoid paying royal fees associated with land. These royal fees, called
feudal incidents, had been slipping away from the Crown for a century or so
before the statute was passed.

Landholders in sixteenth-century England were supposed to hold their land at
the will of a lord, who worked in the service of the king or queen. In
exchange for the land, landholders were obliged to pay certain fees to the
lord, who kept some and turned the rest over to the Crown. Many of the royal
incidents associated with real property were exacted by the Crown when the
landholder died. However, the Crown could collect incidents only if the
legal title passed from the landholder to an heir.

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, landholders had devised a way to
both profit from their land and avoid feudal incidents. The landholders
would place their property in the name of one person for the benefit of a
third party. This third party, called the cestui que use, the beneficiary of
the use, was either the original landholder or a person of the landholder's
choosing. The arrangement created a form of land ownership, or estate in
land, called a use.

Soon courts began to recognize the right of a landholder, as feoffor, to
give possession of his land to a peasant tenant while giving legal title to
a third party, or feoffee. They also enforced agreements between a feoffor
and feoffee in which the feoffee held title to the land only for the benefit
of the cestui que use.

Under the <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+Law> Common
Law, when legal title to land was held by more than one feoffee, partial
title did not pass to the deceased feoffee's heirs upon the death of a
feoffee. Instead, the deceased feoffee's portion of the title passed to the
other feoffees. A landholder, as a feoffor, could give legal title to
several feoffees and add a new feoffee to the legal title upon the death of
any feoffee. Under this system, the death of a title-holding feoffee did not
give rise to an inheritance incident. Thus, a landholder could avoid feudal
incidents while he himself or a person of his choosing continued to reap
profits from the land.

By giving legal title to two or more feoffees, a feoffor also was able to
avoid other royal incidents, such as marriage fees and other fees associated
with the death of a landholder. If the property was held in other persons'
names, a landholder could also avoid losing the property due to debt or
felony conviction. By the end of the fifteenth century, almost all of the
land in England was owned in use. Because most of the land was owned by a
relatively small number of wealthy landowners, in most cases the actual
title owners did not actually live on their parcels of land. Another
consequence was that the Crown had lost substantial revenues due to the
avoidance of the land-based feudal incidents.

King Henry VIII attempted to reclaim these lost revenues with the passage of
the Statute of Uses. Under the act, the full title to land was automatically
given to the person for whom the property was being used, the cestui que
use. The act also reinstated the old feudal rule of primogeniture, which
held that land should go to the oldest son upon the death of the landowner.

Landholders strenuously objected to the statute. Over the next four years
they conducted a Pilgrimage of Grace to London in an effort to convince the
king and Parliament to eliminate primogeniture and reverse the
<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abolition> Abolition of the
use estate.

The campaign caused Henry VIII to loosen the royal grip on land ownership.
In 1540 Parliament passed the Statute of Wills, which abolished
primogeniture and gave landholders the right to devise their property to
whomever they pleased in a written will and testament. However, Parliament
did not abolish the Statute of Uses.

Immediately after the act was passed, landholders set about creating
loopholes. The courts also were hostile to the legislation. They
accommodated landholders by giving the statute a strict technical
construction and by expanding other methods for landholders to put their
property in the name of another person while keeping it for their own use or
profit or for the use or profit of another person. In particular, the
English courts expanded the concept of the trust to fill the void. A land
trust is an arrangement whereby one person holds full title to property for
the benefit of another person, who may direct the management and use of the
property.

Courts focused on the difference between a trust and a use to achieve
essentially the same result for landowners. In a trust the title owner plays
some active role in connection with the use of the property. In contrast,
with a bare use, the feoffee performed no work in connection with the
property and served only as a strawperson. If a feoffee was performing
duties in connection with the property, the land was not in use, courts
reasoned, but in trust. Many of the rules on land trusts that developed in
response to the Statute of Uses were adopted in the United States and
continue in effect today.

In 1660 Parliament abolished all remaining feudal incidents associated with
land in the Statute of Tenure. This obviated the need for a Statute of Uses
because there no longer was any need to evade feudal incidents. The Statute
of Uses was finally repealed by Parliament in 1925 by the Law of Property
Act (12 & 13 Geo. 5, ch. 16, sec. 1(7)).

Further readings

Baade, Hans W. 1994. "The Casus Omissus: A Pre-History of Statutory
Analogy." Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 20.

Haar, Charles M., and Lance Liebman. 1985. Property and Law. 2d ed. Boston:
Little, Brown.

Holmes, William J. 1995. "The Evolution of the Trust: A Creative Solution to
Trustee Liability Under CERCLA." Villanova Environmental Law Journal 6.

Kurtz, Sheldon F., and Herbert Hovenkamp. 2003. Cases and Materials on
American Property Law. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West.

Reid, Charles J. 1995. "The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English
Land Law." Cleveland State Law Review 43.

Cross-references

<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Feudalism> Feudalism.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale
Group, Inc. All rights reserved.







~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Johanne,

They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses

Marie



--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
>
>
> There is one point I would like to pass on, a correction. I would not
> pretend to be able to determine how the estates of the Countess should have
> devolved. But I do know that "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of
> the "use," which is the earliest form of what developed into the concept of
> "trust."
>
>
>
> Here is the definition of "enfeoffment" from
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enfeoffment
>
>
>
> [Enfeoffment:]
>
> Also known as feoffment. Complete surrender and transfer of all land
> ownership rights from one person to another. In old English Law
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> , an enfeoffment
> was a transfer of property by which the new owner was given both the right
> to sell the land and the right to pass it on to heirs, evidenced by livery
> of seisin, a ceremony for transferring the possession of real property from
> one individual to another.
>
>
>
> And here is the entry from the same site for the Statute of Uses, which was
> passed during Fat Harry's reign (1535) -
>
>
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statute+of+Uses+Act+1535
>
>
>
> [Statute of Uses]
>
> An <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> English Law
> enacted in 1535 to end the practice of creating uses in real property by
> changing the purely equitable title of those entitled to a use into absolute
> ownership with the right of possession.
>
> The Statute of Uses was a radical statute forced through a recalcitrant
> English Parliament in 1535 by a willful King Henry VIII. Essentially, the
> statute eliminated a sleight of hand that had been fashioned by landholders
> to avoid paying royal fees associated with land. These royal fees, called
> feudal incidents, had been slipping away from the Crown for a century or so
> before the statute was passed.
>
> Landholders in sixteenth-century England were supposed to hold their land at
> the will of a lord, who worked in the service of the king or queen. In
> exchange for the land, landholders were obliged to pay certain fees to the
> lord, who kept some and turned the rest over to the Crown. Many of the royal
> incidents associated with real property were exacted by the Crown when the
> landholder died. However, the Crown could collect incidents only if the
> legal title passed from the landholder to an heir.
>
> In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, landholders had devised a way to
> both profit from their land and avoid feudal incidents. The landholders
> would place their property in the name of one person for the benefit of a
> third party. This third party, called the cestui que use, the beneficiary of
> the use, was either the original landholder or a person of the landholder's
> choosing. The arrangement created a form of land ownership, or estate in
> land, called a use.
>
> Soon courts began to recognize the right of a landholder, as feoffor, to
> give possession of his land to a peasant tenant while giving legal title to
> a third party, or feoffee. They also enforced agreements between a feoffor
> and feoffee in which the feoffee held title to the land only for the benefit
> of the cestui que use.
>
> Under the <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+Law> Common
> Law, when legal title to land was held by more than one feoffee, partial
> title did not pass to the deceased feoffee's heirs upon the death of a
> feoffee. Instead, the deceased feoffee's portion of the title passed to the
> other feoffees. A landholder, as a feoffor, could give legal title to
> several feoffees and add a new feoffee to the legal title upon the death of
> any feoffee. Under this system, the death of a title-holding feoffee did not
> give rise to an inheritance incident. Thus, a landholder could avoid feudal
> incidents while he himself or a person of his choosing continued to reap
> profits from the land.
>
> By giving legal title to two or more feoffees, a feoffor also was able to
> avoid other royal incidents, such as marriage fees and other fees associated
> with the death of a landholder. If the property was held in other persons'
> names, a landholder could also avoid losing the property due to debt or
> felony conviction. By the end of the fifteenth century, almost all of the
> land in England was owned in use. Because most of the land was owned by a
> relatively small number of wealthy landowners, in most cases the actual
> title owners did not actually live on their parcels of land. Another
> consequence was that the Crown had lost substantial revenues due to the
> avoidance of the land-based feudal incidents.
>
> King Henry VIII attempted to reclaim these lost revenues with the passage of
> the Statute of Uses. Under the act, the full title to land was automatically
> given to the person for whom the property was being used, the cestui que
> use. The act also reinstated the old feudal rule of primogeniture, which
> held that land should go to the oldest son upon the death of the landowner.
>
> Landholders strenuously objected to the statute. Over the next four years
> they conducted a Pilgrimage of Grace to London in an effort to convince the
> king and Parliament to eliminate primogeniture and reverse the
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abolition> Abolition of the
> use estate.
>
> The campaign caused Henry VIII to loosen the royal grip on land ownership.
> In 1540 Parliament passed the Statute of Wills, which abolished
> primogeniture and gave landholders the right to devise their property to
> whomever they pleased in a written will and testament. However, Parliament
> did not abolish the Statute of Uses.
>
> Immediately after the act was passed, landholders set about creating
> loopholes. The courts also were hostile to the legislation. They
> accommodated landholders by giving the statute a strict technical
> construction and by expanding other methods for landholders to put their
> property in the name of another person while keeping it for their own use or
> profit or for the use or profit of another person. In particular, the
> English courts expanded the concept of the trust to fill the void. A land
> trust is an arrangement whereby one person holds full title to property for
> the benefit of another person, who may direct the management and use of the
> property.
>
> Courts focused on the difference between a trust and a use to achieve
> essentially the same result for landowners. In a trust the title owner plays
> some active role in connection with the use of the property. In contrast,
> with a bare use, the feoffee performed no work in connection with the
> property and served only as a strawperson. If a feoffee was performing
> duties in connection with the property, the land was not in use, courts
> reasoned, but in trust. Many of the rules on land trusts that developed in
> response to the Statute of Uses were adopted in the United States and
> continue in effect today.
>
> In 1660 Parliament abolished all remaining feudal incidents associated with
> land in the Statute of Tenure. This obviated the need for a Statute of Uses
> because there no longer was any need to evade feudal incidents. The Statute
> of Uses was finally repealed by Parliament in 1925 by the Law of Property
> Act (12 & 13 Geo. 5, ch. 16, sec. 1(7)).
>
> Further readings
>
> Baade, Hans W. 1994. "The Casus Omissus: A Pre-History of Statutory
> Analogy." Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 20.
>
> Haar, Charles M., and Lance Liebman. 1985. Property and Law. 2d ed. Boston:
> Little, Brown.
>
> Holmes, William J. 1995. "The Evolution of the Trust: A Creative Solution to
> Trustee Liability Under CERCLA." Villanova Environmental Law Journal 6.
>
> Kurtz, Sheldon F., and Herbert Hovenkamp. 2003. Cases and Materials on
> American Property Law. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West.
>
> Reid, Charles J. 1995. "The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English
> Land Law." Cleveland State Law Review 43.
>
> Cross-references
>
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Feudalism> Feudalism.
>
> West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale
> Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Marie -



I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a few
days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
(therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown by
the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be similar
to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was just an
ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be "to
the use" or "in trust." "Cesti que use" may be Norman French, not Latin, as
I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you that
when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the "cesti
que trust," basically the same as the "cesti que use," as a still-vital part
of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in the
17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal incidents.



If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment"
was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something
that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land
and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in
due course.



More later.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses






Hi Johanne,

They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses

Marie




<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Enfeoffment%20versus%20Uses> Reply to sender


<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Enfeoffment%2
0versus%20Uses> Reply to group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGln
OWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjE2MTI2Nw--> Start a New Topic


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/18477;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2aWYxdThyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE4NDkyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjE2MTI2NwR0cGNJZAMxODQ3Nw-
-> Messages in this topic (2)

Recent Activity:

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY
mIxNXN1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTIxNjEyNjc-?o=6> New Members 2

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZGR
1bzg2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzUyMTYxMjY3> New Files 2


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZzUzYmMwB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjE2MTI2Nw--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkamtvOThlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUyMTYxMjY3>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=18492/stime=1352161267/nc1=4025321/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848614>

Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip>
> If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment" was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in due course.

Carol responds:

I know that Richard's legislation included some sort of reform involving enfeoffment, but I've never been quite clear as to what it involved. However, I did run across a source, available as a free ebook, that may help you and Marie understand the concept even if it remains Greek--er, Norman French--to the rest of us, It's Reeves' History of the English Law from the Reign of Edward IV to the Reign of Elizabeth (I):

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1

It does mention Richard's legislation, but I quickly gave up the attempt to read legalese in rather broken nineteenth-century type.

I also found this: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cestui+que+use Evidently, "cestui que use" (which is definitely not Latin and must therefore be Norman French) simply means "beneficiary." Why didn't they just say so in the first place? (Rhetorical question, tongue in cheek.)

By the way, I was surprised to discover (via Merriam-Webster) that "enefeoffment" is pronounced en FEFF ment. I had always thought for some reason ("fief," I think) that it was pronounced en FEEF ment. Live and learn!

Carol

Hi again Johanne,

I stand my ground on this one. A feoffee is the same as a trustee. This is the wiki definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffee

You'll find if you get into reading 15th-century texts that everyone enfeoffed their lands and that the feoffees were not just the new owners, they were the trustees of the feoffor. You will find that people instructed their feoffees in their wills what they wanted them to do with those lands after their death.
Other sorts of land conveyance were not referred to as enfeoffments. New owners who had purchased land outright were not referred to as feoffees. Honestly, this is such an integral part of the way things worked in the 15th century. We had to get our heads round this for the Logge wills project, and it's almost impossible to read any scholarly paper or random selection of original documents without encountering it.
'Cestui qui use' is Norman French. It is definitely not Latin. I read both languages.

Marie



--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie -
>
>
>
> I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a few
> days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
> (therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown by
> the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be similar
> to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was just an
> ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be "to
> the use" or "in trust." "Cesti que use" may be Norman French, not Latin, as
> I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you that
> when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the "cesti
> que trust," basically the same as the "cesti que use," as a still-vital part
> of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in the
> 17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal incidents.
>
>
>
> If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment"
> was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something
> that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land
> and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
> gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in
> due course.
>
>
>
> More later.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
> look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
> the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
> death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
> like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Enfeoffment%20versus%20Uses> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Enfeoffment%2
> 0versus%20Uses> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGln
> OWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjE2MTI2Nw--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/18477;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2aWYxdThyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE4NDkyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjE2MTI2NwR0cGNJZAMxODQ3Nw-
> -> Messages in this topic (2)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY
> mIxNXN1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTIxNjEyNjc-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZGR
> 1bzg2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzUyMTYxMjY3> New Files 2
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZzUzYmMwB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjE2MTI2Nw--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkamtvOThlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUyMTYxMjY3>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =18492/stime=1352161267/nc1=4025321/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848614>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> <snip>
> > If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment" was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in due course.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know that Richard's legislation included some sort of reform involving enfeoffment, but I've never been quite clear as to what it involved. However, I did run across a source, available as a free ebook, that may help you and Marie understand the concept even if it remains Greek--er, Norman French--to the rest of us, It's Reeves' History of the English Law from the Reign of Edward IV to the Reign of Elizabeth (I):
>
> https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1

Sorry, Carol, I really do understand the concept. This is a little awkward.

I don't recall that there was anything about enfeoffments in Richard's legislation, but I'll check.
Marie

Glad you hold the copyright for such a lengthy citation. Or is it in the public domain? Lawyers tend to know these things :p

LOL, etc...

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
>
>
> There is one point I would like to pass on, a correction. I would not
> pretend to be able to determine how the estates of the Countess should have
> devolved. But I do know that "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of
> the "use," which is the earliest form of what developed into the concept of
> "trust."
>
>
>
> Here is the definition of "enfeoffment" from
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enfeoffment
>
>
>
> [Enfeoffment:]
>
> Also known as feoffment. Complete surrender and transfer of all land
> ownership rights from one person to another. In old English Law
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> , an enfeoffment
> was a transfer of property by which the new owner was given both the right
> to sell the land and the right to pass it on to heirs, evidenced by livery
> of seisin, a ceremony for transferring the possession of real property from
> one individual to another.
>
>
>
> And here is the entry from the same site for the Statute of Uses, which was
> passed during Fat Harry's reign (1535) -
>
>
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statute+of+Uses+Act+1535
>
>
>
> [Statute of Uses]
>
> An <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> English Law
> enacted in 1535 to end the practice of creating uses in real property by
> changing the purely equitable title of those entitled to a use into absolute
> ownership with the right of possession.
>
> The Statute of Uses was a radical statute forced through a recalcitrant
> English Parliament in 1535 by a willful King Henry VIII. Essentially, the
> statute eliminated a sleight of hand that had been fashioned by landholders
> to avoid paying royal fees associated with land. These royal fees, called
> feudal incidents, had been slipping away from the Crown for a century or so
> before the statute was passed.
>
> Landholders in sixteenth-century England were supposed to hold their land at
> the will of a lord, who worked in the service of the king or queen. In
> exchange for the land, landholders were obliged to pay certain fees to the
> lord, who kept some and turned the rest over to the Crown. Many of the royal
> incidents associated with real property were exacted by the Crown when the
> landholder died. However, the Crown could collect incidents only if the
> legal title passed from the landholder to an heir.
>
> In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, landholders had devised a way to
> both profit from their land and avoid feudal incidents. The landholders
> would place their property in the name of one person for the benefit of a
> third party. This third party, called the cestui que use, the beneficiary of
> the use, was either the original landholder or a person of the landholder's
> choosing. The arrangement created a form of land ownership, or estate in
> land, called a use.
>
> Soon courts began to recognize the right of a landholder, as feoffor, to
> give possession of his land to a peasant tenant while giving legal title to
> a third party, or feoffee. They also enforced agreements between a feoffor
> and feoffee in which the feoffee held title to the land only for the benefit
> of the cestui que use.
>
> Under the <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+Law> Common
> Law, when legal title to land was held by more than one feoffee, partial
> title did not pass to the deceased feoffee's heirs upon the death of a
> feoffee. Instead, the deceased feoffee's portion of the title passed to the
> other feoffees. A landholder, as a feoffor, could give legal title to
> several feoffees and add a new feoffee to the legal title upon the death of
> any feoffee. Under this system, the death of a title-holding feoffee did not
> give rise to an inheritance incident. Thus, a landholder could avoid feudal
> incidents while he himself or a person of his choosing continued to reap
> profits from the land.
>
> By giving legal title to two or more feoffees, a feoffor also was able to
> avoid other royal incidents, such as marriage fees and other fees associated
> with the death of a landholder. If the property was held in other persons'
> names, a landholder could also avoid losing the property due to debt or
> felony conviction. By the end of the fifteenth century, almost all of the
> land in England was owned in use. Because most of the land was owned by a
> relatively small number of wealthy landowners, in most cases the actual
> title owners did not actually live on their parcels of land. Another
> consequence was that the Crown had lost substantial revenues due to the
> avoidance of the land-based feudal incidents.
>
> King Henry VIII attempted to reclaim these lost revenues with the passage of
> the Statute of Uses. Under the act, the full title to land was automatically
> given to the person for whom the property was being used, the cestui que
> use. The act also reinstated the old feudal rule of primogeniture, which
> held that land should go to the oldest son upon the death of the landowner.
>
> Landholders strenuously objected to the statute. Over the next four years
> they conducted a Pilgrimage of Grace to London in an effort to convince the
> king and Parliament to eliminate primogeniture and reverse the
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abolition> Abolition of the
> use estate.
>
> The campaign caused Henry VIII to loosen the royal grip on land ownership.
> In 1540 Parliament passed the Statute of Wills, which abolished
> primogeniture and gave landholders the right to devise their property to
> whomever they pleased in a written will and testament. However, Parliament
> did not abolish the Statute of Uses.
>
> Immediately after the act was passed, landholders set about creating
> loopholes. The courts also were hostile to the legislation. They
> accommodated landholders by giving the statute a strict technical
> construction and by expanding other methods for landholders to put their
> property in the name of another person while keeping it for their own use or
> profit or for the use or profit of another person. In particular, the
> English courts expanded the concept of the trust to fill the void. A land
> trust is an arrangement whereby one person holds full title to property for
> the benefit of another person, who may direct the management and use of the
> property.
>
> Courts focused on the difference between a trust and a use to achieve
> essentially the same result for landowners. In a trust the title owner plays
> some active role in connection with the use of the property. In contrast,
> with a bare use, the feoffee performed no work in connection with the
> property and served only as a strawperson. If a feoffee was performing
> duties in connection with the property, the land was not in use, courts
> reasoned, but in trust. Many of the rules on land trusts that developed in
> response to the Statute of Uses were adopted in the United States and
> continue in effect today.
>
> In 1660 Parliament abolished all remaining feudal incidents associated with
> land in the Statute of Tenure. This obviated the need for a Statute of Uses
> because there no longer was any need to evade feudal incidents. The Statute
> of Uses was finally repealed by Parliament in 1925 by the Law of Property
> Act (12 & 13 Geo. 5, ch. 16, sec. 1(7)).
>
> Further readings
>
> Baade, Hans W. 1994. "The Casus Omissus: A Pre-History of Statutory
> Analogy." Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 20.
>
> Haar, Charles M., and Lance Liebman. 1985. Property and Law. 2d ed. Boston:
> Little, Brown.
>
> Holmes, William J. 1995. "The Evolution of the Trust: A Creative Solution to
> Trustee Liability Under CERCLA." Villanova Environmental Law Journal 6.
>
> Kurtz, Sheldon F., and Herbert Hovenkamp. 2003. Cases and Materials on
> American Property Law. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West.
>
> Reid, Charles J. 1995. "The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English
> Land Law." Cleveland State Law Review 43.
>
> Cross-references
>
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Feudalism> Feudalism.
>
> West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale
> Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Carol,

I've just checked the intro to Richard's parliament in the Medieval Rolls of Parliament on british history online. I found these:-

"More interesting, and less noticed by later writers, was the second common petition, which rehearsed and revoked the act in the previous parliament making enfeofments no bar to royal rights of wardship in the duchy of Lancaster (item 19 [23]). Richard was absolutely explicit about his motivation. Although he realised that the act would profit him greatly, it would be to the 'grete hurte and thraldome of his subgiettes' and he had therefore annulled it, 'havyng more affeccion to the commen wele of this his realme and of his subgiettes then to his owne singler profit'. This was almost certainly done on the king's own initiative."

"These [Commons] bills were far more precise in their aim. They targeted specific legal issues in need of reform, most famously enfeofments to use (item 20 [24]). The bill did not cut through all the tangles of that particular legal thicket, but it was an important step towards establishing that the cestui qui use was the legal owner of the property."

Marie





--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment" was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in due course.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I know that Richard's legislation included some sort of reform involving enfeoffment, but I've never been quite clear as to what it involved. However, I did run across a source, available as a free ebook, that may help you and Marie understand the concept even if it remains Greek--er, Norman French--to the rest of us, It's Reeves' History of the English Law from the Reign of Edward IV to the Reign of Elizabeth (I):
> >
> > https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1
>
> Sorry, Carol, I really do understand the concept. This is a little awkward.
>
> I don't recall that there was anything about enfeoffments in Richard's legislation, but I'll check.
> Marie
>

Carol responds:
> >
> > I know that Richard's legislation included some sort of reform involving enfeoffment, but I've never been quite clear as to what it involved. However, I did run across a source, available as a free ebook, that may help you and Marie understand the concept even if it remains Greek--er, Norman French--to the rest of us, It's Reeves' History of the English Law from the Reign of Edward IV to the Reign of Elizabeth (I):
> >
> > https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1
>
> Sorry, Carol, I really do understand the concept. This is a little awkward.
>
> I don't recall that there was anything about enfeoffments in Richard's legislation, but I'll check.

Carol responds:

Sorry, Marie. I see that you understand the concept from the post before this one (though it's still Norman French to me). I'm guessing that you're already familiar with the source I linked to as well. If not, you'll probably find it more interesting and informative than I did.

Please do check into Richard's legislation on enfeoffments, which Reeves discusses in a footnote. I think that he was trying to reform the practice, but I'm not sure how. Most discussions of Richard's legislation are either very general or very complex. I need someone to explain this particular law to me in layman's terms.

Carol

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I've just checked the intro to Richard's parliament in the Medieval Rolls of Parliament on british history online. I found these:-
>
> "More interesting, and less noticed by later writers, was the second common petition, which rehearsed and revoked the act in the previous parliament making enfeofments no bar to royal rights of wardship in the duchy of Lancaster (item 19 [23]). Richard was absolutely explicit about his motivation. Although he realised that the act would profit him greatly, it would be to the 'grete hurte and thraldome of his subgiettes' and he had therefore annulled it, 'havyng more affeccion to the commen wele of this his realme and of his subgiettes then to his owne singler profit'. This was almost certainly done on the king's own initiative."
>
> "These [Commons] bills were far more precise in their aim. They targeted specific legal issues in need of reform, most famously enfeofments to use (item 20 [24]). The bill did not cut through all the tangles of that particular legal thicket, but it was an important step towards establishing that the cestui qui use was the legal owner of the property."

Carol responds:

Thanks very much, Marie. I don't have access to this particular source (which seems remarkably fair to Richard and appreciative of his reform efforts). Can you clarify the second paragraph for me? I don't quite understand why a bill submitted on the king's own initiative would end up in the Commons or why the author refers to "these bills" when it's only one law.

Am I right that "cestui qui use" simply means beneficiary? And what exactly does "making enfeofments no bar to royal rights . . ." mean? It also seems odd that it would only be in the duchy of Lancaster and not the whole kingdom.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Carol,
> >
> > I've just checked the intro to Richard's parliament in the Medieval Rolls of Parliament on british history online. I found these:-
> >
> > "More interesting, and less noticed by later writers, was the second common petition, which rehearsed and revoked the act in the previous parliament making enfeofments no bar to royal rights of wardship in the duchy of Lancaster (item 19 [23]). Richard was absolutely explicit about his motivation. Although he realised that the act would profit him greatly, it would be to the 'grete hurte and thraldome of his subgiettes' and he had therefore annulled it, 'havyng more affeccion to the commen wele of this his realme and of his subgiettes then to his owne singler profit'. This was almost certainly done on the king's own initiative."
> >
> > "These [Commons] bills were far more precise in their aim. They targeted specific legal issues in need of reform, most famously enfeofments to use (item 20 [24]). The bill did not cut through all the tangles of that particular legal thicket, but it was an important step towards establishing that the cestui qui use was the legal owner of the property."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much, Marie. I don't have access to this particular source (which seems remarkably fair to Richard and appreciative of his reform efforts). Can you clarify the second paragraph for me? I don't quite understand why a bill submitted on the king's own initiative would end up in the Commons or why the author refers to "these bills" when it's only one law.
>
> Am I right that "cestui qui use" simply means beneficiary? And what exactly does "making enfeofments no bar to royal rights . . ." mean? It also seems odd that it would only be in the duchy of Lancaster and not the whole kingdom.
>
> Carol



'Cestui qui use' is indeed the beneficiary (literally 'the one who uses').
For the rest, I'd better look at the actual text - I've never studied Richard's parliament. The main purpose of enfeoffment to the use had been to legally transfer the land from the real owner to the feoffees so that the owners could circumvent their feudal obligations - for instance, their heirs could enter the land without paying a fine, and it would seem from the above that it also prevented the crown claiming rights of wardship in the event of a minority.
Logically the crown would only have rights over tenants in chief [??], and the hugest single swathe of crown lands was the duchy of Lancaster, which was administered as a separate entity, so I guess it was a good place to start.
It sounds as though Edward IV had passed an Act which meant that he could claim his right of wardship over under-aged heirs of the Duchy of Lancaster whose inheritances had been enfeoffed, but Richard thought that was a step too far. Wardship was very lucrative for the King but could be a cruel practice, and wasn't always as ruthlessly enforced in our period as it was to become under the Tudors. But maybe this was Edward IV aiming to take a step in that direction. Richard had been, as the above explanation mentions, Chief Steward of the Duchy lands in the North and so he probably felt personally involved. In fact, he still was Chief Steward ... in the North - he never appointed anybody else to that role when he became king.

Anyway, I'll cut and paste the texts of the Acts in question tomorrow if poss.

Marie

Hi, Carol (T)!

Thanks for helping out with this. I think the free dictionary is the same
website that I excerpted the other two entries from. It's very handy; there
was really a lot of information about uses.



I ordered the books from the Barristers' Library but found they no longer
courier them to lawyers like me, who live outside of Halifax, for free. So I
either have to pick them up or arrange for a courier. I may have second
thoughts about the matter!



I did make a quick swing by the Acadia University library and got a few
books about the period that look interesting and that might have some
relevant information. I will look over them and get back on this thread
later today or tomorrow.



Pronunciation of "feoffment" - actually I've heard both ways, "FEFF-ment"
and "FEEF-ment." I am not sure which is more correct. The Brits here might
know! And, yes, if I had thought about "Cesti que use" I would have realized
it sounds like archaic French rather than Latin. Duh!



Real property law and wills and estates law are probably the two branches of
the law that have changed the least over time - except that in Britain I
know that many things were updated by the Real Property Act of 1925. But
when I started to practice law in 1985, many deeds I uncovered in my
searches used old, archaic language that Richard would probably have
understood (better than I do, LOL!) When a person wanted to convey real
property, for example, that included everything built on the land as well as
the land itself, there was a whole string of archaic terms for the
buildings, two of which were "messuages" and "heriditaments" (I think I
spelled that right. Messuages are a type of outbuildings, I think, and
heriditaments are anything that can be "inherited." Interesting, no?



TTFN <smile>



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses





Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip>
> If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say
"feoffment" was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was
something that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in
that land and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take
this as gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative
information in due course.

Carol responds:

I know that Richard's legislation included some sort of reform involving
enfeoffment, but I've never been quite clear as to what it involved.
However, I did run across a source, available as a free ebook, that may help
you and Marie understand the concept even if it remains Greek--er, Norman
French--to the rest of us, It's Reeves' History of the English Law from the
Reign of Edward IV to the Reign of Elizabeth (I):

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vfEKAAAAYAAJ
<https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-vfEKA
AAAYAAJ&rdot=1> &rdid=book-vfEKAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1

It does mention Richard's legislation, but I quickly gave up the attempt to
read legalese in rather broken nineteenth-century type.

I also found this:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cestui+que+use Evidently,
"cestui que use" (which is definitely not Latin and must therefore be Norman
French) simply means "beneficiary." Why didn't they just say so in the first
place? (Rhetorical question, tongue in cheek.)

By the way, I was surprised to discover (via Merriam-Webster) that
"enefeoffment" is pronounced en FEFF ment. I had always thought for some
reason ("fief," I think) that it was pronounced en FEEF ment. Live and
learn!

Carol

Marie wrote:
> 'Cestui qui use' is indeed the beneficiary (literally 'the one who uses').
> For the rest, I'd better look at the actual text - I've never studied Richard's parliament. The main purpose of enfeoffment to the use had been to legally transfer the land from the real owner to the feoffees so that the owners could circumvent their feudal obligations - for instance, their heirs could enter the land without paying a fine, and it would seem from the above that it also prevented the crown claiming rights of wardship in the event of a minority.
> Logically the crown would only have rights over tenants in chief [??], and the hugest single swathe of crown lands was the duchy of Lancaster, which was administered as a separate entity, so I guess it was a good place to start.
> It sounds as though Edward IV had passed an Act which meant that he could claim his right of wardship over under-aged heirs of the Duchy of Lancaster whose inheritances had been enfeoffed, but Richard thought that was a step too far. Wardship was very lucrative for the King but could be a cruel practice, and wasn't always as ruthlessly enforced in our period as it was to become under the Tudors. But maybe this was Edward IV aiming to take a step in that direction. Richard had been, as the above explanation mentions, Chief Steward of the Duchy lands in the North and so he probably felt personally involved. In fact, he still was Chief Steward ... in the North - he never appointed anybody else to that role when he became king.
>
> Anyway, I'll cut and paste the texts of the Acts in question tomorrow if poss.

Carol responds:

Wonderful. Thank you. By the way, do you know who wrote the description of Richard's legislation that you quoted earlier? It sounds as if he or she is an expert on legal matters who appreciates Richard's efforts at reform.

I suspect that if Richard's laws were better known, historians and the general public would be more receptive to the idea that he wasn't a greedy, ambitious, ruthless hypocrite but a genuine reformer whose concern for the welfare of his subjects was real.

Carol

ohanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol (T)!
>
> Thanks for helping out with this. I think the free dictionary is the same website that I excerpted the other two entries from. It's very handy; there was really a lot of information about uses. <snip>

Carol responds:

You're welcome. I tried, anyway, though I obviously don't know much about the subject! Did you get a chance to check out the Reeves book? It's old, but it does discuss the period we're interested in (and mentions Richard's legislation on enfeoffments, which Marie is helping me to understand).

The Free Online Dictionary site can be very useful (for example, when I'm trying to explain an idiom to a client), but I have a gripe against it. Check out the entries on Richard III, especially the last one (scroll down to see the picture):

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Richard+III

He looks like an evil Munchkin, and at least seventy-five years old. Or maybe they have him confused with Rumplestiltskin.

Carol

Was it common for any king to say, "I'm rich enough and this isn't fair: I'm giving this back to the heirs"?

The selfish bint in me hopes this was all Richard's doing and not Richard conscientiously finishing up things after his brother's passing.

If it's all Richard and he was being kind to a few underage subjects [whom he had never met] when it came to money, then maybe it'd be one more piece of circumstantial evidence that it's likely he was kind to his underage nephews [who shared his family's blood] when it came to protecting them.

Okay, that argument is more sentimental than logical, but pfft, I don't care.


~Wednesday


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> It sounds as though Edward IV had passed an Act which meant that he could claim his right of wardship over under-aged heirs of the Duchy of Lancaster whose inheritances had been enfeoffed, but Richard thought that was a step too far. Wardship was very lucrative for the King but could be a cruel practice, and wasn't always as ruthlessly enforced in our period as it was to become under the Tudors. But maybe this was Edward IV aiming to take a step in that direction. Richard had been, as the above explanation mentions, Chief Steward of the Duchy lands in the North and so he probably felt personally involved. In fact, he still was Chief Steward ... in the North - he never appointed anybody else to that role when he became king.
>
> Anyway, I'll cut and paste the texts of the Acts in question tomorrow if poss.
>
> Marie
>

Hi! I was out most of the day today, so I'm just getting caught up on
message traffic, and since it's late, I'll work on this more tomorrow.



Look- I haven't studied this stuff since 1981, and obviously it's not stuff
that I used once I started to practice law, so I may have it wrong - all I'm
saying is that I *think* that enfeoffment could do more than create a use.
In other words, it's a more general term. I brought several books on
property law home with me, but it looks like only one will be good for our
period - but that one looks really interesting! It's called - *Bastard
Feudalism and the Law,* by J.G. Bellamy, published by Areopagitica Press,
1989. Turns out that that is what the period of the 14th. and 15th.
centuries is called. Named by Prof. K.B. McFarlane, it refers to "a late
medieval society where the features of feudalism still subsisted, though
only superficially, and where the tenurial bond between lord and vassal had
been superseded as the primary social tie by the personal contract between
master and man." (pg.2)



As I said, I'll try to send more info tomorrow. I am just sorry that I
don't still have my 1st. year textbook, *Introduction to Real Property Law,*
by Alan Sinclair, who was my professor, because it was just full of
interesting conveyances, like "fee male tail," etc. etc. As I said, a lot of
it I've forgotten, but once upon a time I was pretty good at analyzing and
diagramming the transactions. And they all go back to the Middle Ages!



Nighty-night,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses





ohanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol (T)!
>
> Thanks for helping out with this. I think the free dictionary is the same
website that I excerpted the other two entries from. It's very handy; there
was really a lot of information about uses. <snip>

Carol responds:

You're welcome. I tried, anyway, though I obviously don't know much about
the subject! Did you get a chance to check out the Reeves book? It's old,
but it does discuss the period we're interested in (and mentions Richard's
legislation on enfeoffments, which Marie is helping me to understand).

The Free Online Dictionary site can be very useful (for example, when I'm
trying to explain an idiom to a client), but I have a gripe against it.
Check out the entries on Richard III, especially the last one (scroll down
to see the picture):

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Richard+III

He looks like an evil Munchkin, and at least seventy-five years old. Or
maybe they have him confused with Rumplestiltskin.

Carol

> > Anyway, I'll cut and paste the texts of the Acts in question tomorrow if poss.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wonderful. Thank you. By the way, do you know who wrote the description of Richard's legislation that you quoted earlier? It sounds as if he or she is an expert on legal matters who appreciates Richard's efforts at reform.
>
> I suspect that if Richard's laws were better known, historians and the general public would be more receptive to the idea that he wasn't a greedy, ambitious, ruthless hypocrite but a genuine reformer whose concern for the welfare of his subjects was real.
>
> Carol
>

Hi Carol,
Here are the texts of the Acts, as promised:-


"An act that the king shall have the wardship of lands in the duchy of Lancaster.
19.[23.] In the last parliament held at Westminster on 20 January in the twenty-second year of the reign of King Edward IV [1483], it was ordained, enacted and decreed in the manner and form that follows in these words:
Because by recoveries, fines, enfeoffments and other estates of lands, tenements and hereditaments made and had on trust by the tenants holding immediately of our sovereign lord the king, or of other persons to his use, as of his duchy of Lancaster by knights' service, or by the same service of our sovereign lady the queen by reason of any manors or lordships which are part of the same duchy and in her hands, they have not only lost and daily lose the wardships and marriages of the heirs of the same tenants to whose use such recoveries, fines, enfeoffments and estates were thus made and had, but also the custody of the same lands, tenements and hereditaments, reliefs and other profits which should belong to them by the death of their said tenants, if such recoveries, fines, enfeoffments and other estates had not been had or made. It is therefore ordained, enacted and decreed by authority of this present parliament that our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and our sovereign lady the queen shall individually have the wardship of the body and the marriage of every underage person to whose use the interest in fee-simple or fee-tail in any lands, tenements or hereditaments thus held might grow or belong as heirs by the death of any of his ancestors; and also the wardship of all the lands, tenements and hereditaments thus held by reason of the same duchy or of any part of it of the king or of his heirs, or of anyone else to their use, or of the queen, which shall descend, or from which the interest in fee-simple or fee-tail shall grow or come, to the same underage heirs or to their use, by the death of the same ancestors; and that to be had and taken by our said sovereign lord the king and his heirs and by the queen individually by way of seizure, as if the ancestors of the same heirs had died solely seised of the same lands, tenements and hereditaments by inheritance; notwithstanding any such recoveries, fines, enfeoffments or estates of trust had or made in any way, as is aforesaid. And if any such heir is of full age at the time of the death of his ancestors, then our said sovereign lord the king, his heirs and the queen shall individually have the reliefs after the death of the ancestors who held of them or of other persons, as described above, to the king's use and benefit by knights' service; notwithstanding any such recoveries, fines, enfeoffments or estates of trust had or made in any way, as is described above. Provided always that this present act shall not extend to hinder or be prejudicial to the performance of any will of any person made and declared, or hereafter to be made and declared, with regard to the aforesaid lands, tenements and hereditaments; saving to our said sovereign lord the king and to his heirs, and to our sovereign lady the queen individually such reasonable share of the same lands, tenements and hereditaments as will be sufficient to provide for the heirs during their minority according to their estate, degree or condition, notwithstanding the same wills. And immediately after the wills have been performed, the heirs then being under age, our said sovereign lord the king and his heirs and our sovereign lady the queen may individually seize the remainder of all the said lands and tenements and have them in wardship during the minority of the said heirs, in the abovesaid form; saving also to our said sovereign lord and his heirs their prerogative for the wardship of the body of any such heirs, notwithstanding this act. And if the said underage heirs are stolen away or removed by any person or persons, so that the king's officers of his said duchy may not seize the bodies of the said heirs, that then, upon information given to the chancellor of England at the time by the attorney-general of the said duchy, it shall be lawful for the chancellor of England to grant as many writs of sub pena from the court of chancery as the said attorney shall require and request on the king's behalf, against any person or persons who shall thus remove or steal away the said heirs being in the king's wardship, in the same manner and form as should be granted from the said court of chancery against those who remove or steal away the king's wards due to him in right of his crown, after an inquisition on this has been returned into the said court of chancery. And in the same way the attorney of the said queen shall have the same authority concerning her right in the said duchy of Lancaster. And also, by the said advice, assent and authority, it is ordained, enacted and decreed that if the king's attorney-general of his said duchy of Lancaster at the time submits a bill into any of the king's courts by way of information, showing in the same to the court how and in what respect the king or anyone else to his use is unlawfully harmed or wronged in anything pertaining to him in right of the same duchy; that immediately, at the request of the same attorney, the justices of the same court where the said bill and information shall remain shall have power upon the same to award process by capias, and to make other such processes in any county of England as should be made on that matter by legal process if original writs were sued thereupon by order of the law, or such process for the same as should be awarded for the king for the same offence committed against him in right of his crown. And by the said advice, assent and authority, it is also ordained and decreed that the king, in all actions, suits and demands which he shall sue and obtain in any of his courts in and for any matters that shall pertain and belong to him in right of his said duchy of Lancaster, shall recover the same damages in his said suits, actions or demands as a commoner among his subjects should recover in the same actions sued by him at common law; and in the same way the queen shall recover damages in such actions as shall be sued by her, by reason of the said duchy. And by the said advice, assent and authority it is also ordained, enacted and decreed that this present act shall begin and take effect from Easter next. Provided always that this act, or any other act made or to be made in this present parliament, shall not extend or be prejudicial in any way to James, the present bishop of Norwich, or to his successors, or to John, the prior, and the convent of the cathedral church of Norwich, or to their successors, or to Thomas, the abbot, and the convent of St Benets, or to their successors, or to any of them, with regard to anything pertaining or belonging to any of them, as more fully appears in the same acts. The king, notwithstanding that he believes the said acts to be to his great profit and benefit, believes them to be to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects, and having more affection to the common weal of this his realm and of his subjects than to his personal profit, by the advice of his lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, has ordained, enacted and decreed that the aforesaid acts, and each of them, be annulled, repealed and of no force or effect, and that his said subjects shall stand and be at their same liberty and freedom as they were before the same acts were made."

"An act against secret and unknown enfeoffments.
20.[24.] Because great uncertainty, trouble, expense and grievous vexations arise daily among the king's subjects as a result of secret and unknown enfeoffments, in that no man who buys any lands, tenements, rents and services or other hereditaments, or women who have jointure or dower in any lands, tenements or other hereditaments, or in the performance of men's last wills, or in leases for term of life or of years, or in annuities granted to any person or persons for their service for term of their lives or otherwise, can be entirely sure or free from doubt and trouble concerning the same because of the said secret and unknown enfeoffments.
For remedy of which, be it ordained, decreed and enacted, by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, that every estate, enfeoffment, gift, release, grant, lease and confirmation of lands, tenements, rents, services or hereditaments which are made or had, or hereafter will be made or had, by any person or persons of full age, of whole mind, at liberty and not under duress to any person or persons, and all recoveries and executions had or made, shall be good and effectual to him to whom it is thus made, had or given and to all others to his use against the seller, feoffor, giver or granter of the same, and against the sellers, feoffors, givers or granters, and his or their heirs claiming the same only as heir or heirs to the same sellers, feoffors, givers or granters, and each of them, and against all others having or claiming any title or interest in the same to the use of the same seller, feoffor, giver or granter, sellers, feoffors, givers or granters only, or his or their said heirs, when the bargain, sale, covenant, gift or grant is made; saving to every person or persons such right, title, action and interest by reason of any gift in tail of the same, as they should have had if this act had not been made."

From: 'Richard III: January 1484', Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=116561&strquery=feof Date accessed: 08 November 2012.

These run side-by-side with versions in the original spelling, but I thought the modern spelling and punctuation would make for an easier read.

The editor of that part of 'The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England' was Rosemary Horrox, so I imagine it was she who wrote the introduction I quoted in my last post. She is very fair-minded.

Marie

Hi Johanne,

You do appear to have have shifted your ground. Could I respectfully remind you of the original exchange:-

I wrote to Doug:
"Sounds like what you are talking about is enfeoffments to the use, whereby a person granted their property to a set of guys (feoffees), to be used for the benefit of themselves and their heirs as specified in the grant. Because the feoffees were the legal owners it circumvented the need for the heir to pay a fine for entering his inheritance. Enfeoffments were also used to protect lands
from forfeiture and to set aside funds for the charitable uses specified in a will, etc, etc."

You replied
"I do know that "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of
the "use," which is the earliest form of what developed into the concept of "trust."
[Enfeoffment:] Also known as feoffment. Complete surrender and transfer of all land ownership rights from one person to another. In old English Law ... an enfeoffment was a transfer of property by which the new owner was given both the right to sell the land and the right to pass it on to heirs, evidenced by livery of seisin, a ceremony for transferring the possession of real property from
one individual to another.
And here is the entry from the same site for the Statute of Uses, which was passed during Fat Harry's reign (1535)
[Statute of Uses]
An English Law enacted in 1535 to end the practice of creating uses in real property by changing the purely equitable title of those entitled to a use into absolute ownership with the right of possession.
The Statute of Uses was a radical statute forced through a recalcitrant English Parliament in 1535 by a willful King Henry VIII. Essentially, the statute eliminated a sleight of hand that had been fashioned by landholders to avoid paying royal fees associated with land. These royal fees, called feudal incidents, had been slipping away from the Crown for a century or so before the statute was passed."

As I read this, you seem to have been saying that feoffments were never trusts, and that the Statute of Uses was not referring to feoffments.
I can't see what is wrong with my original post. I wondered whether I had carelessly referred to just "feoffments" rather than "foffments to the use", but I see I hadn't at all.

You may well be right and that technically a feoffment could also be an outright transfer of ownership, but you would struggle to find any instances of feoffments not to the use of a trhird party in our period.

Given that you no longer seem to have a problem with what I originally wrote, please could we wrap this up?

Marie




>
> Look- I haven't studied this stuff since 1981, and obviously it's not stuff
> that I used once I started to practice law, so I may have it wrong - all I'm
> saying is that I *think* that enfeoffment could do more than create a use.
> In other words, it's a more general term. I brought several books on
> property law home with me, but it looks like only one will be good for our
> period - but that one looks really interesting! It's called - *Bastard
> Feudalism and the Law,* by J.G. Bellamy, published by Areopagitica Press,
> 1989. Turns out that that is what the period of the 14th. and 15th.
> centuries is called. Named by Prof. K.B. McFarlane, it refers to "a late
> medieval society where the features of feudalism still subsisted, though
> only superficially, and where the tenurial bond between lord and vassal had
> been superseded as the primary social tie by the personal contract between
> master and man." (pg.2)
>
>
>
> As I said, I'll try to send more info tomorrow. I am just sorry that I
> don't still have my 1st. year textbook, *Introduction to Real Property Law,*
> by Alan Sinclair, who was my professor, because it was just full of
> interesting conveyances, like "fee male tail," etc. etc. As I said, a lot of
> it I've forgotten, but once upon a time I was pretty good at analyzing and
> diagramming the transactions. And they all go back to the Middle Ages!
>
>
>
> Nighty-night,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
>
>
>
>
> ohanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Carol (T)!
> >
> > Thanks for helping out with this. I think the free dictionary is the same
> website that I excerpted the other two entries from. It's very handy; there
> was really a lot of information about uses. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. I tried, anyway, though I obviously don't know much about
> the subject! Did you get a chance to check out the Reeves book? It's old,
> but it does discuss the period we're interested in (and mentions Richard's
> legislation on enfeoffments, which Marie is helping me to understand).
>
> The Free Online Dictionary site can be very useful (for example, when I'm
> trying to explain an idiom to a client), but I have a gripe against it.
> Check out the entries on Richard III, especially the last one (scroll down
> to see the picture):
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Richard+III
>
> He looks like an evil Munchkin, and at least seventy-five years old. Or
> maybe they have him confused with Rumplestiltskin.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dear Marie, Carol (T) and everyone -



Please read over once again my previous email below. Marie, you provided the
Wikipedia entry for "Feoffee." Well, here is the Wikipedia entry for
"feoffment" at -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment There is a lot of
information in this entry, and to the best of my knowledge it is correct.
Feoffment goes back, as the system of land ownership in England does, to
William the Conqueror, who actually as monarch was held to be owner of all
the land in England, by the Grace of God. When William created landowners of
the magnates under him, he did in by enfeoffing them. No one but the king
owned the land outright. In return the lords owed those "feudal incidents"
of service, etc. that have been mentioned to the king. When the lords
granted smaller parcels of their land to underlings, they also did it by
feoffment, or enfeoffment, and the feoffees owed the feudal incidents to
their feoffor, their immediate overlord.



Uses, as we have already discussed, were a way for an underling who had been
granted an estate in land, to avoid having to provide those incidents of
feudalism to the overlord; thus they were the precursor of the trust. The
legal estate in the land and the equitable estate were divided, which they
were not under the usual forms of enfeoffment. And that is why you see
references to "enfeoffment to the use." That is different than an ordinary
enfeoffment. See below, under the Wikipedia entry for an illustrative
passage from *Bastard Feudalism and the Law* by J.G. Bellamy.



Feoffment, (or Enfeoffment) in English law was a transfer of land or
property that gave the new holder the right to sell it as well as the right
to pass it on to his heirs as an inheritance. It was total relinquishment
and transfer of all rights of ownership of an estate in land
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_in_land> from one individual to
another.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment#cite_note-0> In feudal
England a feoffment could only be made of a fee
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_(feudal_tenure)> (or "fief"), which is an
estate in land <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_in_land> , that is to
say an ownership of rights over land, rather than ownership of the land
itself, the only true owner of which was the monarch under his allodial
title <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title> . Enfeoffment could be
made of fees of various feudal tenures
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure> , such as fee-tail
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entail> or fee-simple
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-simple> .[2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment#cite_note-1> The conveyance
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conveyancing> or delivery of possession,
known as livery of seisin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_of_seisin>
was effected generally on the site of the land in a symbolic ceremony of
transfer from the feoffor to the feoffee
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffee> in the presence of witnesses.
Written conveyances were customary and mandatory after 1677.[3]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment#cite_note-2> The feoffee was
thenceforward said to hold his property "of" or "from" the feoffor, in
return for a specified service depending on the exact form of feudal land
tenure <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure> involved in the
feoffment. Thus for every holding of land during the feudal era
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism_in_England> there existed an
historical unbroken chain of feoffees, in the form of overlords
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlord> , ultimately springing from
feoffments made by William the Conqueror
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror> himself in 1066 as the
highest overlord of all. This pattern of land-holding was the natural
product of William the Conqueror claiming an allodial title to all the land
of England following the Norman Conquest
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest> of 1066 and parcelling it
out as large fees <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_(feudal_tenure)> in the
form of feudal baronies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_feudal_barony>
to his followers, who then in turn subinfeudated the lands comprising their
baronies into manors <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor> to be held from
them by their own followers and knights. When the new feoffee sub-enfeoffed
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subinfeudation> another person from his
holding, for example where he created a new manor
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor> , he would become overlord
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlord> to the person so enfeoffed, and a
mesne lord <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesne_lord> within the longer
historical chain of title. In modern English land law the theory of such
long historical chain of title still exists for every holding in fee simple
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple> , although for practical purposes
it is not necessary at the time of conveyance to recite the descent of the
fee from its creation. The establishment of a national Land Registry
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Registry> has obviated the need for
recitals of descent.



And here is a passage from *Bastard Feudalism and the Law,* by J.G. Bellamy,
Portland, Ore.: Areopagitica Press, 1989, pg. 49. Unfortunately Prof.
Bellamy does not define his terms. But I think one can tell from this
passage that "feoffment" is the general term and "feoffment to the use" is a
more particular type of conveyance:



During the middle years of the fourteenth century the judges interpreted the
common law related to ownership of land in such a way that a party with
title, but not in occupation, was not jeopardized in his right of entry by
sheer lapse of time unless, that is, the occupier died and his heir
succeeded without the rival party exercising his right. Then, early in the
reign of Richard II, came the rule that a right of entry continued to exist
regardless of feoffment over. The reason for this softening of the law may
well have been that many of the feoffments made by occupiers at this time
were *feoffments made to the use of the grantor.* [emphasis mine] Such
feoffments were not usually known to the claimant and he would be ignorant
anyway of the names of the feoffees to uses, those persons he must sue in
court over title. Such frustration was likely to cause him to enter with
force. In altering the law the Crown was trying to persuade would-be
entrants that they would not endanger their rights by postponing their
entry. To supplement this diminution for entry there was promulgated in 1381
the first statute of a series designed to dissuade and punish those
attempting entry by force. The Act, 5 Ric. II st. 1 c. 7, stipulated that
there must be no entry except where it was allowed by law, in which case it
must be in peaceable guise and not with a strong hand or a multitude of
supporters. . . . A fourth [statute], 8 Hen. VI c. 9, extended the
provisions of the 1391 Act to those who entered in peaceable fashion but
afterwards held by force, and to entrants by forcible means who were no
longer in occupation when the justices of the peace arrived. In addition, it
declared those enfeoffments void which which been made by entrants to a lord
who had maintained them, and, furthermore, it offered treble damages to a
party put out who won an action of novel disseisin or trespass. This Act,
although directed against the 'strong hand' of an intruder, allowed any
party, who had been in possession of land for three years or more, to use
force to retain it and not be liable under the earlier forcible entry
statutes.



Marie, you know tons more than I do about Richard and you know tons more
about the details of most of this than I do. But I do feel that if I can
help clarify a fine point - which legal experts would expect one to be aware
of - it may help (I hope) in the process of educating all of us Ricardians
in these matters in dealing with other experts in the field. None of us, no
matter how knowledgeable, knows everything about every issue, and we can all
learn from one another, in a polite and friendly exchange of ideas,
recognizing that we are all here to gain more knowledge of Richard and his
era, which will hopefully assist in clearing his name for posterity.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:24 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses





Hi! I was out most of the day today, so I'm just getting caught up on
message traffic, and since it's late, I'll work on this more tomorrow.

Look- I haven't studied this stuff since 1981, and obviously it's not stuff
that I used once I started to practice law, so I may have it wrong - all I'm
saying is that I *think* that enfeoffment could do more than create a use.
In other words, it's a more general term. I brought several books on
property law home with me, but it looks like only one will be good for our
period - but that one looks really interesting! It's called - *Bastard
Feudalism and the Law,* by J.G. Bellamy, published by Areopagitica Press,
1989. Turns out that that is what the period of the 14th. and 15th.
centuries is called. Named by Prof. K.B. McFarlane, it refers to "a late
medieval society where the features of feudalism still subsisted, though
only superficially, and where the tenurial bond between lord and vassal had
been superseded as the primary social tie by the personal contract between
master and man." (pg.2)

As I said, I'll try to send more info tomorrow. I am just sorry that I
don't still have my 1st. year textbook, *Introduction to Real Property Law,*
by Alan Sinclair, who was my professor, because it was just full of
interesting conveyances, like "fee male tail," etc. etc. As I said, a lot of
it I've forgotten, but once upon a time I was pretty good at analyzing and
diagramming the transactions. And they all go back to the Middle Ages!

Nighty-night,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm re-sending my last email to make it clearer what I was writing and what
I was quoting from other sources. Johanne

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:17 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses



Dear Marie, Carol (T) and everyone -

Please read over once again my previous email below. Marie, you provided the
Wikipedia entry for "Feoffee." Well, here is the Wikipedia entry for
"feoffment" at -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment There is a lot of
information in this entry, and to the best of my knowledge it is correct.
Feoffment goes back, as the system of land ownership in England does, to
William the Conqueror, who actually as monarch was held to be owner of all
the land in England, by the Grace of God. When William created landowners of
the magnates under him, he did in by enfeoffing them. No one but the king
owned the land outright. In return the lords owed those "feudal incidents"
of service, etc. that have been mentioned to the king. When the lords
granted smaller parcels of their land to underlings, they also did it by
feoffment, or enfeoffment, and the feoffees owed the feudal incidents to
their feoffor, their immediate overlord.

Uses, as we have already discussed, were a way for an underling who had been
granted an estate in land, to avoid having to provide those incidents of
feudalism to the overlord; thus they were the precursor of the trust. The
legal estate in the land and the equitable estate were divided, which they
were not under the usual forms of enfeoffment. And that is why you see
references to "enfeoffment to the use." That is different than an ordinary
enfeoffment. See below, under the Wikipedia entry for an illustrative
passage from *Bastard Feudalism and the Law* by J.G. Bellamy.
____________________________________


Feoffment, (or Enfeoffment) in English law was a transfer of land or
property that gave the new holder the right to sell it as well as the right
to pass it on to his heirs as an inheritance. It was total relinquishment
and transfer of all rights of ownership of an estate in land
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_in_land> from one individual to
another.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment#cite_note-0> In feudal
England a feoffment could only be made of a fee
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_(feudal_tenure)> (or "fief"), which is
anestate in land <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_in_land> , that is to
say an ownership of rights over land, rather than ownership of the land
itself, the only true owner of which was the monarch under his allodial
title <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title> . Enfeoffment could be
made of fees of various feudal tenures
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure> , such as fee-tail
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entail> or fee-simple
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-simple> .[2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment#cite_note-1> The conveyance
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conveyancing> or delivery of possession, known
as livery of seisin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_of_seisin>
was effected generally on the site of the land in a symbolic ceremony of
transfer from the feoffor to the feoffee
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffee> in the presence of witnesses. Written
conveyances were customary and mandatory after 1677.[3]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment#cite_note-2> The feoffee was
thenceforward said to hold his property "of" or "from" the feoffor, in
return for a specified service depending on the exact form of feudal land
tenure <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure> involved in the
feoffment. Thus for every holding of land during the feudal era
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism_in_England> there existed an
historical unbroken chain of feoffees, in the form of overlords
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlord> , ultimately springing from
feoffments made by William the Conqueror
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror> himself in 1066 as the
highest overlord of all. This pattern of land-holding was the natural
product of William the Conqueror claiming an allodial title to all the land
of England following the Norman Conquest
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest> of 1066 and parcelling it out
as large fees <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_(feudal_tenure)> in the form
of feudal baronies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_feudal_barony>
to his followers, who then in turn subinfeudated the lands comprising their
baronies into manors <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor> to be held from
them by their own followers and knights. When the new feoffee sub-enfeoffed
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subinfeudation> another person from his
holding, for example where he created a new manor
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor> , he would become overlord
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlord> to the person so enfeoffed, and a
mesne lord <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesne_lord> within the longer
historical chain of title. In modern English land law the theory of such
long historical chain of title still exists for every holding in fee simple
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple> , although for practical purposes
it is not necessary at the time of conveyance to recite the descent of the
fee from its creation. The establishment of a national Land Registry
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Registry> has obviated the need for
recitals of descent.



_______________________________

And here is a passage from *Bastard Feudalism and the Law,* by J.G. Bellamy,
Portland, Ore.: Areopagitica Press, 1989, pg. 49. Unfortunately Prof.
Bellamy does not define his terms. But I think one can tell from this
passage that "feoffment" is the general term and "feoffment to the use" is a
more particular type of conveyance:
__________________________________


During the middle years of the fourteenth century the judges interpreted the
common law related to ownership of land in such a way that a party with
title, but not in occupation, was not jeopardized in his right of entry by
sheer lapse of time unless, that is, the occupier died and his heir
succeeded without the rival party exercising his right. Then, early in the
reign of Richard II, came the rule that a right of entry continued to exist
regardless of feoffment over. The reason for this softening of the law may
well have been that many of the feoffments made by occupiers at this time
were *feoffments made to the use of the grantor.* [emphasis mine] Such
feoffments were not usually known to the claimant and he would be ignorant
anyway of the names of the feoffees to uses, those persons he must sue in
court over title. Such frustration was likely to cause him to enter with
force. In altering the law the Crown was trying to persuade would-be
entrants that they would not endanger their rights by postponing their
entry. To supplement this diminution for entry there was promulgated in 1381
the first statute of a series designed to dissuade and punish those
attempting entry by force. The Act, 5 Ric. II st. 1 c. 7, stipulated that
there must be no entry except where it was allowed by law, in which case it
must be in peaceable guise and not with a strong hand or a multitude of
supporters. . . . A fourth [statute], 8 Hen. VI c. 9, extended the
provisions of the 1391 Act to those who entered in peaceable fashion but
afterwards held by force, and to entrants by forcible means who were no
longer in occupation when the justices of the peace arrived. In addition, it
declared those enfeoffments void which which been made by entrants to a lord
who had maintained them, and, furthermore, it offered treble damages to a
party put out who won an action of novel disseisin or trespass. This Act,
although directed against the 'strong hand' of an intruder, allowed any
party, who had been in possession of land for three years or more, to use
force to retain it and not be liable under the earlier forcible entry
statutes.




Marie, you know tons more than I do about Richard and you know tons more
about the details of most of this than I do. But I do feel that if I can
help clarify a fine point - which legal experts would expect one to be aware
of - it may help (I hope) in the process of educating all of us Ricardians
in these matters in dealing with other experts in the field. None of us, no
matter how knowledgeable, knows everything about every issue, and we can all
learn from one another, in a polite and friendly exchange of ideas,
recognizing that we are all here to gain more knowledge of Richard and his
era, which will hopefully assist in clearing his name for posterity.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:24 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses

Hi! I was out most of the day today, so I'm just getting caught up on
message traffic, and since it's late, I'll work on this more tomorrow.

Look- I haven't studied this stuff since 1981, and obviously it's not stuff
that I used once I started to practice law, so I may have it wrong - all I'm
saying is that I *think* that enfeoffment could do more than create a use.
In other words, it's a more general term. I brought several books on
property law home with me, but it looks like only one will be good for our
period - but that one looks really interesting! It's called - *Bastard
Feudalism and the Law,* by J.G. Bellamy, published by Areopagitica Press,
1989. Turns out that that is what the period of the 14th. and 15th.
centuries is called. Named by Prof. K.B. McFarlane, it refers to "a late
medieval society where the features of feudalism still subsisted, though
only superficially, and where the tenurial bond between lord and vassal had
been superseded as the primary social tie by the personal contract between
master and man." (pg.2)

As I said, I'll try to send more info tomorrow. I am just sorry that I
don't still have my 1st. year textbook, *Introduction to Real Property Law,*
by Alan Sinclair, who was my professor, because it was just full of
interesting conveyances, like "fee male tail," etc. etc. As I said, a lot of
it I've forgotten, but once upon a time I was pretty good at analyzing and
diagramming the transactions. And they all go back to the Middle Ages!

Nighty-night,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Marie -

As you wish - I will not discuss this any further, but I would like to
forward an earlier email on this thread (see immediately below this email),
in which I indicated the difference (as I recollected) between an ordinary
"(en)feoffment" and a "feoffment to the use."



I was indicating that I knew I might be mis-stating, but I wanted to get the
point out there, because I thought that Douglas was perhaps misunderstanding
what "enfeoffment" was in the general sense - that it was the word for
transferring interests in land, whether or not a use was created.



Shortly after I wrote, I felt you smacked me down. I had written in part
(which you quoted in your email):


> There is one point I would like to pass on, a >correction. I would not
pretend to be able to >determine how the estates of the Countess >should
have devolved. But I do know that >"enfeoffment" is different than the
concept of
> the "use," which is the earliest form of what >developed into the concept
of "trust."



And you responded:



Hi Johanne,

They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses

Marie



Me now -



In fact they are different things, as I indicated from the beginning.



I would have appreciated having the time to do the research and respond more
thoroughly and at more leisure. My intent was to provide more authoritative
information than I could provide from my own knowledge and thus to clarify
the distinction between "enfeoffment" and "enfeoffment to the use" and
between "enfeoffment" and "uses," in order to clear up any possible
confusion in anyone's mind.



I am sorry you got upset. That wasn't my intent at all. But I would
certainly appreciate it if you would address me with the same courtesy that
you would like to be addressed.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:38 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses





Hi, Marie -

I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a few
days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
(therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown by
the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be similar
to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was just an
ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be "to
the use" or "in trust." "Cest[u]i que use" may be Norman French, not Latin,
as I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you
that when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the
"cest[u]i que trust," basically the same as the "cest[u]i que use," as a
still-vital part
of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in the
17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal incidents.

If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment"
was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something
that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land
and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in
due course.

More later.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses

Hi Johanne,

They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses

Marie

Dear Johanne,


1) Enfeoffments and the use are NOT different things: generally both are found (at this period anyway) in the form of enfeoffments to the use.

2) I did not "smack you down" at that point (this morning, maybe) - I merely confirmed that what I had written was correct, which I was surely entitled to do. It was correct. I have written things on the forum in the past that have been wrong or required clarification, and I am always careful to be honest and post a correction afterwards rather than attempt to save face and mislead.

3) You now say that it was Doug you were correcting, not myself. That was not at all clear from your post, though, which was addressed "Dear All". Given that enfeoffments to the use were the normal type referred to in 15th century documents, Doug would not really have gone astray if he did not take account of the possibility of other types of feoffment. Also your statement that ' "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of the "use," ' was very misleading.

I will not pursue this further - I think everyone has now had the chance to see for themselves that contemporaries referred to "feoffment to the use of...."

Marie










--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Marie -
>
> As you wish - I will not discuss this any further, but I would like to
> forward an earlier email on this thread (see immediately below this email),
> in which I indicated the difference (as I recollected) between an ordinary
> "(en)feoffment" and a "feoffment to the use."
>
>
>
> I was indicating that I knew I might be mis-stating, but I wanted to get the
> point out there, because I thought that Douglas was perhaps misunderstanding
> what "enfeoffment" was in the general sense - that it was the word for
> transferring interests in land, whether or not a use was created.
>
>
>
> Shortly after I wrote, I felt you smacked me down. I had written in part
> (which you quoted in your email):
>
>
> > There is one point I would like to pass on, a >correction. I would not
> pretend to be able to >determine how the estates of the Countess >should
> have devolved. But I do know that >"enfeoffment" is different than the
> concept of
> > the "use," which is the earliest form of what >developed into the concept
> of "trust."
>
>
>
> And you responded:
>
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
> look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
> the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
> death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
> like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> Me now -
>
>
>
> In fact they are different things, as I indicated from the beginning.
>
>
>
> I would have appreciated having the time to do the research and respond more
> thoroughly and at more leisure. My intent was to provide more authoritative
> information than I could provide from my own knowledge and thus to clarify
> the distinction between "enfeoffment" and "enfeoffment to the use" and
> between "enfeoffment" and "uses," in order to clear up any possible
> confusion in anyone's mind.
>
>
>
> I am sorry you got upset. That wasn't my intent at all. But I would
> certainly appreciate it if you would address me with the same courtesy that
> you would like to be addressed.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
> Tournier
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:38 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, Marie -
>
> I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a few
> days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
> (therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown by
> the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be similar
> to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was just an
> ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be "to
> the use" or "in trust." "Cest[u]i que use" may be Norman French, not Latin,
> as I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you
> that when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the
> "cest[u]i que trust," basically the same as the "cest[u]i que use," as a
> still-vital part
> of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in the
> 17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal incidents.
>
> If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment"
> was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something
> that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land
> and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
> gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in
> due course.
>
> More later.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
> look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
> the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
> death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
> like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all forms of feoffdom and uses are possible."
>
> - Johanne L. Tournier
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
>
> 1) Enfeoffments and the use are NOT different things: generally both are found (at this period anyway) in the form of enfeoffments to the use.
>
> 2) I did not "smack you down" at that point (this morning, maybe) - I merely confirmed that what I had written was correct, which I was surely entitled to do. It was correct. I have written things on the forum in the past that have been wrong or required clarification, and I am always careful to be honest and post a correction afterwards rather than attempt to save face and mislead.
>
> 3) You now say that it was Doug you were correcting, not myself. That was not at all clear from your post, though, which was addressed "Dear All". Given that enfeoffments to the use were the normal type referred to in 15th century documents, Doug would not really have gone astray if he did not take account of the possibility of other types of feoffment. Also your statement that ' "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of the "use," ' was very misleading.
>
> I will not pursue this further - I think everyone has now had the chance to see for themselves that contemporaries referred to "feoffment to the use of...."
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marie -
> >
> > As you wish - I will not discuss this any further, but I would like to
> > forward an earlier email on this thread (see immediately below this email),
> > in which I indicated the difference (as I recollected) between an ordinary
> > "(en)feoffment" and a "feoffment to the use."
> >
> >
> >
> > I was indicating that I knew I might be mis-stating, but I wanted to get the
> > point out there, because I thought that Douglas was perhaps misunderstanding
> > what "enfeoffment" was in the general sense - that it was the word for
> > transferring interests in land, whether or not a use was created.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shortly after I wrote, I felt you smacked me down. I had written in part
> > (which you quoted in your email):
> >
> >
> > > There is one point I would like to pass on, a >correction. I would not
> > pretend to be able to >determine how the estates of the Countess >should
> > have devolved. But I do know that >"enfeoffment" is different than the
> > concept of
> > > the "use," which is the earliest form of what >developed into the concept
> > of "trust."
> >
> >
> >
> > And you responded:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
> > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
> > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
> > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
> > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.
> >
> > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > Me now -
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact they are different things, as I indicated from the beginning.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have appreciated having the time to do the research and respond more
> > thoroughly and at more leisure. My intent was to provide more authoritative
> > information than I could provide from my own knowledge and thus to clarify
> > the distinction between "enfeoffment" and "enfeoffment to the use" and
> > between "enfeoffment" and "uses," in order to clear up any possible
> > confusion in anyone's mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sorry you got upset. That wasn't my intent at all. But I would
> > certainly appreciate it if you would address me with the same courtesy that
> > you would like to be addressed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
> > Tournier
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:38 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Marie -
> >
> > I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a few
> > days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
> > (therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown by
> > the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be similar
> > to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was just an
> > ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be "to
> > the use" or "in trust." "Cest[u]i que use" may be Norman French, not Latin,
> > as I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you
> > that when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the
> > "cest[u]i que trust," basically the same as the "cest[u]i que use," as a
> > still-vital part
> > of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in the
> > 17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal incidents.
> >
> > If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say "feoffment"
> > was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was something
> > that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that land
> > and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
> > gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information in
> > due course.
> >
> > More later.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@ <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
> >
> > or jltournier@ <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make it
> > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments to
> > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what amounted to
> > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to me
> > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th century.
> >
> > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi, there!

I'm not an expert on copyright by any means. But with regard to a book in
copyright, there are fair use provisions. Even more, when something is
posted on the WWW and when you reproduce it, you give a link to the site,
and you don't make any changes to the material you quote, I don't think it's
a violation of copyright law. They want people to go to their site - I'm
publicizing them, so if anything they may get more traffic as a result of my
post. I reproduced the whole entry here as a courtesy to the other members
of this Forum.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
blancsanglier1452
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:14 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses





Glad you hold the copyright for such a lengthy citation. Or is it in the
public domain? Lawyers tend to know these things :p

LOL, etc...

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
>
>
> There is one point I would like to pass on, a correction. I would not
> pretend to be able to determine how the estates of the Countess should
have
> devolved. But I do know that "enfeoffment" is different than the concept
of
> the "use," which is the earliest form of what developed into the concept
of
> "trust."
>
>
>
> Here is the definition of "enfeoffment" from
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enfeoffment
>
>
>
> [Enfeoffment:]
>
> Also known as feoffment. Complete surrender and transfer of all land
> ownership rights from one person to another. In old English Law
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> , an
enfeoffment
> was a transfer of property by which the new owner was given both the right
> to sell the land and the right to pass it on to heirs, evidenced by livery
> of seisin, a ceremony for transferring the possession of real property
from
> one individual to another.
>
>
>
> And here is the entry from the same site for the Statute of Uses, which
was
> passed during Fat Harry's reign (1535) -
>
>
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statute+of+Uses+Act+1535
>
>
>
> [Statute of Uses]
>
> An <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English+Law> English Law
> enacted in 1535 to end the practice of creating uses in real property by
> changing the purely equitable title of those entitled to a use into
absolute
> ownership with the right of possession.
>
> The Statute of Uses was a radical statute forced through a recalcitrant
> English Parliament in 1535 by a willful King Henry VIII. Essentially, the
> statute eliminated a sleight of hand that had been fashioned by
landholders
> to avoid paying royal fees associated with land. These royal fees, called
> feudal incidents, had been slipping away from the Crown for a century or
so
> before the statute was passed.
>
> Landholders in sixteenth-century England were supposed to hold their land
at
> the will of a lord, who worked in the service of the king or queen. In
> exchange for the land, landholders were obliged to pay certain fees to the
> lord, who kept some and turned the rest over to the Crown. Many of the
royal
> incidents associated with real property were exacted by the Crown when the
> landholder died. However, the Crown could collect incidents only if the
> legal title passed from the landholder to an heir.
>
> In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, landholders had devised a way
to
> both profit from their land and avoid feudal incidents. The landholders
> would place their property in the name of one person for the benefit of a
> third party. This third party, called the cestui que use, the beneficiary
of
> the use, was either the original landholder or a person of the
landholder's
> choosing. The arrangement created a form of land ownership, or estate in
> land, called a use.
>
> Soon courts began to recognize the right of a landholder, as feoffor, to
> give possession of his land to a peasant tenant while giving legal title
to
> a third party, or feoffee. They also enforced agreements between a feoffor
> and feoffee in which the feoffee held title to the land only for the
benefit
> of the cestui que use.
>
> Under the <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+Law>
Common
> Law, when legal title to land was held by more than one feoffee, partial
> title did not pass to the deceased feoffee's heirs upon the death of a
> feoffee. Instead, the deceased feoffee's portion of the title passed to
the
> other feoffees. A landholder, as a feoffor, could give legal title to
> several feoffees and add a new feoffee to the legal title upon the death
of
> any feoffee. Under this system, the death of a title-holding feoffee did
not
> give rise to an inheritance incident. Thus, a landholder could avoid
feudal
> incidents while he himself or a person of his choosing continued to reap
> profits from the land.
>
> By giving legal title to two or more feoffees, a feoffor also was able to
> avoid other royal incidents, such as marriage fees and other fees
associated
> with the death of a landholder. If the property was held in other persons'
> names, a landholder could also avoid losing the property due to debt or
> felony conviction. By the end of the fifteenth century, almost all of the
> land in England was owned in use. Because most of the land was owned by a
> relatively small number of wealthy landowners, in most cases the actual
> title owners did not actually live on their parcels of land. Another
> consequence was that the Crown had lost substantial revenues due to the
> avoidance of the land-based feudal incidents.
>
> King Henry VIII attempted to reclaim these lost revenues with the passage
of
> the Statute of Uses. Under the act, the full title to land was
automatically
> given to the person for whom the property was being used, the cestui que
> use. The act also reinstated the old feudal rule of primogeniture, which
> held that land should go to the oldest son upon the death of the
landowner.
>
> Landholders strenuously objected to the statute. Over the next four years
> they conducted a Pilgrimage of Grace to London in an effort to convince
the
> king and Parliament to eliminate primogeniture and reverse the
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abolition> Abolition of the
> use estate.
>
> The campaign caused Henry VIII to loosen the royal grip on land ownership.
> In 1540 Parliament passed the Statute of Wills, which abolished
> primogeniture and gave landholders the right to devise their property to
> whomever they pleased in a written will and testament. However, Parliament
> did not abolish the Statute of Uses.
>
> Immediately after the act was passed, landholders set about creating
> loopholes. The courts also were hostile to the legislation. They
> accommodated landholders by giving the statute a strict technical
> construction and by expanding other methods for landholders to put their
> property in the name of another person while keeping it for their own use
or
> profit or for the use or profit of another person. In particular, the
> English courts expanded the concept of the trust to fill the void. A land
> trust is an arrangement whereby one person holds full title to property
for
> the benefit of another person, who may direct the management and use of
the
> property.
>
> Courts focused on the difference between a trust and a use to achieve
> essentially the same result for landowners. In a trust the title owner
plays
> some active role in connection with the use of the property. In contrast,
> with a bare use, the feoffee performed no work in connection with the
> property and served only as a strawperson. If a feoffee was performing
> duties in connection with the property, the land was not in use, courts
> reasoned, but in trust. Many of the rules on land trusts that developed in
> response to the Statute of Uses were adopted in the United States and
> continue in effect today.
>
> In 1660 Parliament abolished all remaining feudal incidents associated
with
> land in the Statute of Tenure. This obviated the need for a Statute of
Uses
> because there no longer was any need to evade feudal incidents. The
Statute
> of Uses was finally repealed by Parliament in 1925 by the Law of Property
> Act (12 & 13 Geo. 5, ch. 16, sec. 1(7)).
>
> Further readings
>
> Baade, Hans W. 1994. "The Casus Omissus: A Pre-History of Statutory
> Analogy." Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 20.
>
> Haar, Charles M., and Lance Liebman. 1985. Property and Law. 2d ed.
Boston:
> Little, Brown.
>
> Holmes, William J. 1995. "The Evolution of the Trust: A Creative Solution
to
> Trustee Liability Under CERCLA." Villanova Environmental Law Journal 6.
>
> Kurtz, Sheldon F., and Herbert Hovenkamp. 2003. Cases and Materials on
> American Property Law. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West.
>
> Reid, Charles J. 1995. "The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English
> Land Law." Cleveland State Law Review 43.
>
> Cross-references
>
> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Feudalism> Feudalism.
>
> West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale
> Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

<SNORT> I think I'll adopt a new signature! Thanks for the inspiration!



Johanne

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
blancsanglier1452
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses





> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all forms of feoffdom and uses are possible."
>
> - Johanne L. Tournier
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
>
> 1) Enfeoffments and the use are NOT different things: generally both are
found (at this period anyway) in the form of enfeoffments to the use.
>
> 2) I did not "smack you down" at that point (this morning, maybe) - I
merely confirmed that what I had written was correct, which I was surely
entitled to do. It was correct. I have written things on the forum in the
past that have been wrong or required clarification, and I am always careful
to be honest and post a correction afterwards rather than attempt to save
face and mislead.
>
> 3) You now say that it was Doug you were correcting, not myself. That was
not at all clear from your post, though, which was addressed "Dear All".
Given that enfeoffments to the use were the normal type referred to in 15th
century documents, Doug would not really have gone astray if he did not take
account of the possibility of other types of feoffment. Also your statement
that ' "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of the "use," ' was very
misleading.
>
> I will not pursue this further - I think everyone has now had the chance
to see for themselves that contemporaries referred to "feoffment to the use
of...."
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marie -
> >
> > As you wish - I will not discuss this any further, but I would like to
> > forward an earlier email on this thread (see immediately below this
email),
> > in which I indicated the difference (as I recollected) between an
ordinary
> > "(en)feoffment" and a "feoffment to the use."
> >
> >
> >
> > I was indicating that I knew I might be mis-stating, but I wanted to get
the
> > point out there, because I thought that Douglas was perhaps
misunderstanding
> > what "enfeoffment" was in the general sense - that it was the word for
> > transferring interests in land, whether or not a use was created.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shortly after I wrote, I felt you smacked me down. I had written in part
> > (which you quoted in your email):
> >
> >
> > > There is one point I would like to pass on, a >correction. I would not
> > pretend to be able to >determine how the estates of the Countess >should
> > have devolved. But I do know that >"enfeoffment" is different than the
> > concept of
> > > the "use," which is the earliest form of what >developed into the
concept
> > of "trust."
> >
> >
> >
> > And you responded:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
it
> > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
to
> > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
amounted to
> > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
me
> > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
century.
> >
> > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > Me now -
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact they are different things, as I indicated from the beginning.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have appreciated having the time to do the research and respond
more
> > thoroughly and at more leisure. My intent was to provide more
authoritative
> > information than I could provide from my own knowledge and thus to
clarify
> > the distinction between "enfeoffment" and "enfeoffment to the use" and
> > between "enfeoffment" and "uses," in order to clear up any possible
> > confusion in anyone's mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sorry you got upset. That wasn't my intent at all. But I would
> > certainly appreciate it if you would address me with the same courtesy
that
> > you would like to be addressed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Johanne
> > Tournier
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:38 AM
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Marie -
> >
> > I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a
few
> > days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
> > (therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown
by
> > the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be
similar
> > to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was
just an
> > ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be
"to
> > the use" or "in trust." "Cest[u]i que use" may be Norman French, not
Latin,
> > as I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you
> > that when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the
> > "cest[u]i que trust," basically the same as the "cest[u]i que use," as a
> > still-vital part
> > of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in
the
> > 17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal
incidents.
> >
> > If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say
"feoffment"
> > was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was
something
> > that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that
land
> > and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
> > gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information
in
> > due course.
> >
> > More later.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@ <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
> >
> > or jltournier@ <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
it
> > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
to
> > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
amounted to
> > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
me
> > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
century.
> >
> > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

;) LOL

Anyway I haven't even worked out how to append a sig yet!

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> <SNORT> I think I'll adopt a new signature! Thanks for the inspiration!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> blancsanglier1452
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
>
>
>
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all forms of feoffdom and uses are possible."
> >
> > - Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Johanne,
> >
> >
> > 1) Enfeoffments and the use are NOT different things: generally both are
> found (at this period anyway) in the form of enfeoffments to the use.
> >
> > 2) I did not "smack you down" at that point (this morning, maybe) - I
> merely confirmed that what I had written was correct, which I was surely
> entitled to do. It was correct. I have written things on the forum in the
> past that have been wrong or required clarification, and I am always careful
> to be honest and post a correction afterwards rather than attempt to save
> face and mislead.
> >
> > 3) You now say that it was Doug you were correcting, not myself. That was
> not at all clear from your post, though, which was addressed "Dear All".
> Given that enfeoffments to the use were the normal type referred to in 15th
> century documents, Doug would not really have gone astray if he did not take
> account of the possibility of other types of feoffment. Also your statement
> that ' "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of the "use," ' was very
> misleading.
> >
> > I will not pursue this further - I think everyone has now had the chance
> to see for themselves that contemporaries referred to "feoffment to the use
> of...."
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Marie -
> > >
> > > As you wish - I will not discuss this any further, but I would like to
> > > forward an earlier email on this thread (see immediately below this
> email),
> > > in which I indicated the difference (as I recollected) between an
> ordinary
> > > "(en)feoffment" and a "feoffment to the use."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was indicating that I knew I might be mis-stating, but I wanted to get
> the
> > > point out there, because I thought that Douglas was perhaps
> misunderstanding
> > > what "enfeoffment" was in the general sense - that it was the word for
> > > transferring interests in land, whether or not a use was created.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shortly after I wrote, I felt you smacked me down. I had written in part
> > > (which you quoted in your email):
> > >
> > >
> > > > There is one point I would like to pass on, a >correction. I would not
> > > pretend to be able to >determine how the estates of the Countess >should
> > > have devolved. But I do know that >"enfeoffment" is different than the
> > > concept of
> > > > the "use," which is the earliest form of what >developed into the
> concept
> > > of "trust."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And you responded:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Johanne,
> > >
> > > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
> it
> > > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
> to
> > > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
> amounted to
> > > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
> me
> > > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
> century.
> > >
> > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Me now -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In fact they are different things, as I indicated from the beginning.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would have appreciated having the time to do the research and respond
> more
> > > thoroughly and at more leisure. My intent was to provide more
> authoritative
> > > information than I could provide from my own knowledge and thus to
> clarify
> > > the distinction between "enfeoffment" and "enfeoffment to the use" and
> > > between "enfeoffment" and "uses," in order to clear up any possible
> > > confusion in anyone's mind.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am sorry you got upset. That wasn't my intent at all. But I would
> > > certainly appreciate it if you would address me with the same courtesy
> that
> > > you would like to be addressed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Johanne
> > > Tournier
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:38 AM
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Marie -
> > >
> > > I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a
> few
> > > days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
> > > (therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown
> by
> > > the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be
> similar
> > > to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was
> just an
> > > ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be
> "to
> > > the use" or "in trust." "Cest[u]i que use" may be Norman French, not
> Latin,
> > > as I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you
> > > that when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the
> > > "cest[u]i que trust," basically the same as the "cest[u]i que use," as a
> > > still-vital part
> > > of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in
> the
> > > 17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal
> incidents.
> > >
> > > If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say
> "feoffment"
> > > was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was
> something
> > > that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that
> land
> > > and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
> > > gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information
> in
> > > due course.
> > >
> > > More later.
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@ <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > or jltournier@ <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > > mariewalsh2003
> > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> > >
> > > Hi Johanne,
> > >
> > > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
> it
> > > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
> to
> > > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
> amounted to
> > > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
> me
> > > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
> century.
> > >
> > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Johanne,

Sorry I over-reacted yesterday morning - I had had very little sleep, but that is absolutely no excuse. I think we both felt under pressure with this one, and I was concerned that the essential point about 15th century trusts was getting lost or negated.
Hope we can be friends.
Marie


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> <SNORT> I think I'll adopt a new signature! Thanks for the inspiration!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> blancsanglier1452
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
>
>
>
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all forms of feoffdom and uses are possible."
> >
> > - Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Johanne,
> >
> >
> > 1) Enfeoffments and the use are NOT different things: generally both are
> found (at this period anyway) in the form of enfeoffments to the use.
> >
> > 2) I did not "smack you down" at that point (this morning, maybe) - I
> merely confirmed that what I had written was correct, which I was surely
> entitled to do. It was correct. I have written things on the forum in the
> past that have been wrong or required clarification, and I am always careful
> to be honest and post a correction afterwards rather than attempt to save
> face and mislead.
> >
> > 3) You now say that it was Doug you were correcting, not myself. That was
> not at all clear from your post, though, which was addressed "Dear All".
> Given that enfeoffments to the use were the normal type referred to in 15th
> century documents, Doug would not really have gone astray if he did not take
> account of the possibility of other types of feoffment. Also your statement
> that ' "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of the "use," ' was very
> misleading.
> >
> > I will not pursue this further - I think everyone has now had the chance
> to see for themselves that contemporaries referred to "feoffment to the use
> of...."
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Marie -
> > >
> > > As you wish - I will not discuss this any further, but I would like to
> > > forward an earlier email on this thread (see immediately below this
> email),
> > > in which I indicated the difference (as I recollected) between an
> ordinary
> > > "(en)feoffment" and a "feoffment to the use."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was indicating that I knew I might be mis-stating, but I wanted to get
> the
> > > point out there, because I thought that Douglas was perhaps
> misunderstanding
> > > what "enfeoffment" was in the general sense - that it was the word for
> > > transferring interests in land, whether or not a use was created.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shortly after I wrote, I felt you smacked me down. I had written in part
> > > (which you quoted in your email):
> > >
> > >
> > > > There is one point I would like to pass on, a >correction. I would not
> > > pretend to be able to >determine how the estates of the Countess >should
> > > have devolved. But I do know that >"enfeoffment" is different than the
> > > concept of
> > > > the "use," which is the earliest form of what >developed into the
> concept
> > > of "trust."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And you responded:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Johanne,
> > >
> > > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
> it
> > > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
> to
> > > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
> amounted to
> > > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
> me
> > > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
> century.
> > >
> > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Me now -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In fact they are different things, as I indicated from the beginning.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would have appreciated having the time to do the research and respond
> more
> > > thoroughly and at more leisure. My intent was to provide more
> authoritative
> > > information than I could provide from my own knowledge and thus to
> clarify
> > > the distinction between "enfeoffment" and "enfeoffment to the use" and
> > > between "enfeoffment" and "uses," in order to clear up any possible
> > > confusion in anyone's mind.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am sorry you got upset. That wasn't my intent at all. But I would
> > > certainly appreciate it if you would address me with the same courtesy
> that
> > > you would like to be addressed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Johanne
> > > Tournier
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:38 AM
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Marie -
> > >
> > > I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a
> few
> > > days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
> > > (therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown
> by
> > > the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be
> similar
> > > to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was
> just an
> > > ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be
> "to
> > > the use" or "in trust." "Cest[u]i que use" may be Norman French, not
> Latin,
> > > as I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you
> > > that when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the
> > > "cest[u]i que trust," basically the same as the "cest[u]i que use," as a
> > > still-vital part
> > > of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in
> the
> > > 17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal
> incidents.
> > >
> > > If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say
> "feoffment"
> > > was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was
> something
> > > that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that
> land
> > > and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
> > > gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information
> in
> > > due course.
> > >
> > > More later.
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@ <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > or jltournier@ <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > > mariewalsh2003
> > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> > >
> > > Hi Johanne,
> > >
> > > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
> it
> > > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
> to
> > > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
> amounted to
> > > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
> me
> > > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
> century.
> > >
> > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:
//snip//

"1) Enfeoffments and the use are NOT different things: generally both are
found (at this period anyway) in the form of enfeoffments to the use."
//snip//

I KNEW I didn't phrase my post properly!
What I was wondering was that IF "enfeoffment" during this period was
somewhat analogous to "trusts" today and, as one use of trusts today is to
avoid paying taxes, could one then consider legislation against
enfeoffment/s be considered more of an attempt to rein in the misuse of a
legal form or was it merely an attempt to (re)gain lost income on the part
of Edward? Or both?
Very sorry for any misunderstanding,
Doug

To all:

As forum moderator I would like to say that when people get carried away with a discussion it can be easy to get embroiled in a topic and a heated discussion evolves where both parties can see red and pursue a narrow path of debate. All I would like to say that if this situation happens, that both or more people just drop the thread or agree to disagree in an adult way.

Emails have very little means of expression and can be taken in more ways than one as we all know. I shouldn't really be having to say this as we are normally considerate to each other and know what general forum etiquette is, so let's cool it and start again on a civil footing.

Regards,

Neil

Forum Moderator



On 9 Nov 2012, at 15:19, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Johanne,
>
> Sorry I over-reacted yesterday morning - I had had very little sleep, but that is absolutely no excuse. I think we both felt under pressure with this one, and I was concerned that the essential point about 15th century trusts was getting lost or negated.
> Hope we can be friends.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > <SNORT> I think I'll adopt a new signature! Thanks for the inspiration!
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> > blancsanglier1452
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all forms of feoffdom and uses are possible."
> > >
> > > - Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Johanne,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Enfeoffments and the use are NOT different things: generally both are
> > found (at this period anyway) in the form of enfeoffments to the use.
> > >
> > > 2) I did not "smack you down" at that point (this morning, maybe) - I
> > merely confirmed that what I had written was correct, which I was surely
> > entitled to do. It was correct. I have written things on the forum in the
> > past that have been wrong or required clarification, and I am always careful
> > to be honest and post a correction afterwards rather than attempt to save
> > face and mislead.
> > >
> > > 3) You now say that it was Doug you were correcting, not myself. That was
> > not at all clear from your post, though, which was addressed "Dear All".
> > Given that enfeoffments to the use were the normal type referred to in 15th
> > century documents, Doug would not really have gone astray if he did not take
> > account of the possibility of other types of feoffment. Also your statement
> > that ' "enfeoffment" is different than the concept of the "use," ' was very
> > misleading.
> > >
> > > I will not pursue this further - I think everyone has now had the chance
> > to see for themselves that contemporaries referred to "feoffment to the use
> > of...."
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> > <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Marie -
> > > >
> > > > As you wish - I will not discuss this any further, but I would like to
> > > > forward an earlier email on this thread (see immediately below this
> > email),
> > > > in which I indicated the difference (as I recollected) between an
> > ordinary
> > > > "(en)feoffment" and a "feoffment to the use."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was indicating that I knew I might be mis-stating, but I wanted to get
> > the
> > > > point out there, because I thought that Douglas was perhaps
> > misunderstanding
> > > > what "enfeoffment" was in the general sense - that it was the word for
> > > > transferring interests in land, whether or not a use was created.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Shortly after I wrote, I felt you smacked me down. I had written in part
> > > > (which you quoted in your email):
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > There is one point I would like to pass on, a >correction. I would not
> > > > pretend to be able to >determine how the estates of the Countess >should
> > > > have devolved. But I do know that >"enfeoffment" is different than the
> > > > concept of
> > > > > the "use," which is the earliest form of what >developed into the
> > concept
> > > > of "trust."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And you responded:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Johanne,
> > > >
> > > > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
> > it
> > > > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
> > to
> > > > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
> > amounted to
> > > > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
> > me
> > > > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
> > century.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Me now -
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In fact they are different things, as I indicated from the beginning.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would have appreciated having the time to do the research and respond
> > more
> > > > thoroughly and at more leisure. My intent was to provide more
> > authoritative
> > > > information than I could provide from my own knowledge and thus to
> > clarify
> > > > the distinction between "enfeoffment" and "enfeoffment to the use" and
> > > > between "enfeoffment" and "uses," in order to clear up any possible
> > > > confusion in anyone's mind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry you got upset. That wasn't my intent at all. But I would
> > > > certainly appreciate it if you would address me with the same courtesy
> > that
> > > > you would like to be addressed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > [mailto:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Johanne
> > > > Tournier
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:38 AM
> > > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: RE: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Marie -
> > > >
> > > > I've ordered some books from our Barristers' Library that will take a
> > few
> > > > days to reach me, so bear with me here. I would be willing to bet
> > > > (therefore, I'm pretty sure) that the two things are different, as shown
> > by
> > > > the fact that you refer to a "feoffment to the use" which would be
> > similar
> > > > to a conveyance in trust. But you could have a "feoffment" which was
> > just an
> > > > ordinary conveyance of land to another person; therefore it would not be
> > "to
> > > > the use" or "in trust." "Cest[u]i que use" may be Norman French, not
> > Latin,
> > > > as I would have thought, given that it's a legal term - but I assure you
> > > > that when I went to law school some 30 years ago, we learned about the
> > > > "cest[u]i que trust," basically the same as the "cest[u]i que use," as a
> > > > still-vital part
> > > > of the law of trusts. As the materials I sent indicate, uses died out in
> > the
> > > > 17th. century, when they were no longer necessary to avoid feudal
> > incidents.
> > > >
> > > > If I had to characterize my understanding right now, I would say
> > "feoffment"
> > > > was the process of conveyance of estates in land. The "use" was
> > something
> > > > that allowed the splitting of the legal and equitable estates in that
> > land
> > > > and the conveyance for the benefit of a third party. Don't take this as
> > > > gospel! I will try to bring forward some more authoritative information
> > in
> > > > due course.
> > > >
> > > > More later.
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@ <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@ <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > [mailto:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > > > mariewalsh2003
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:21 PM
> > > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
> > > >
> > > > Hi Johanne,
> > > >
> > > > They're not actually different things even though your two entries make
> > it
> > > > look like it. Henry VIII abolished the practice of making enfeoffments
> > to
> > > > the use of the feoffor and his heirs as a means of avoiding what
> > amounted to
> > > > death duties. The term cestui qui use is Norman French and so looks to
> > me
> > > > like a legal term. Nobody was using Norman French in the late 15th
> > century.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620297/Statute-of-Uses
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Hi, Marie & Everyone -

As Samwise Gamgee said, "Well, I'm back!"

Thanks for your note, Marie. I sure don't want to get bogged down again in the previous brouhaha; I just want to say that I was trying to explain from my rather vague memory of what I had studied about 30 years ago - the difference between "enfeoffments" in general and "enfeoffments to the use" in particular. But I knew I had to do some further research to flesh it out. I knew you knew what you were talking about (more about issues like that than I do!) - but I wanted to present something that might be "First Year Medieval Property Law," just to clarify for people like myself who might get the terms confused. I figure you are more like at about the Third Year level. <smile> And I was more or less giving some of the historical background to the 15th. century situation - at least that's what I was trying to do.

I respect your knowledge, Marie. And I usually agree with your analyses, which have really taught me a lot about some of the more arcane aspects of Ricardianism. So, yes, for my part, I want to be friends. After all, we are all serving under the banner of Richard III.

Maybe, if there is any misunderstanding arising between us in the future, we can nip a feud in the bud by discussing it off-list first.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Sorry I over-reacted yesterday morning - I had had very little sleep, but that is absolutely no excuse. I think we both felt under pressure with this one, and I was concerned that the essential point about 15th century trusts was getting lost or negated.
> Hope we can be friends.
> Marie
>
>

Hi Johanne,

Glad this is sorted out. I'm nowhere near 3rd-year medieval law - I do have a couple of reference books but I'm coming at it from a different direction - ie I have looked at a lot of 15th century documents and tried to follow people's disputes, etc, and look up what I encounter along the way. So I've got a fairly good idea of the sort of legal subterfuges and mix-ups people tended to get involved in at this period (which was, as someone else pointed out, a transition period, when the old feudal ways were breaking down or not really doing the job, but the modern forms of land tenure hadn't yet been established).

But you have a proper background knowledge of the thread of legal history, which is something I lack. So we really should be able to do more together than apart.

Very best,

Marie


--- In , "jltournier1" <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie & Everyone -
>
> As Samwise Gamgee said, "Well, I'm back!"
>
> Thanks for your note, Marie. I sure don't want to get bogged down again in the previous brouhaha; I just want to say that I was trying to explain from my rather vague memory of what I had studied about 30 years ago - the difference between "enfeoffments" in general and "enfeoffments to the use" in particular. But I knew I had to do some further research to flesh it out. I knew you knew what you were talking about (more about issues like that than I do!) - but I wanted to present something that might be "First Year Medieval Property Law," just to clarify for people like myself who might get the terms confused. I figure you are more like at about the Third Year level. <smile> And I was more or less giving some of the historical background to the 15th. century situation - at least that's what I was trying to do.
>
> I respect your knowledge, Marie. And I usually agree with your analyses, which have really taught me a lot about some of the more arcane aspects of Ricardianism. So, yes, for my part, I want to be friends. After all, we are all serving under the banner of Richard III.
>
> Maybe, if there is any misunderstanding arising between us in the future, we can nip a feud in the bud by discussing it off-list first.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > Sorry I over-reacted yesterday morning - I had had very little sleep, but that is absolutely no excuse. I think we both felt under pressure with this one, and I was concerned that the essential point about 15th century trusts was getting lost or negated.
> > Hope we can be friends.
> > Marie
> >
> >
>

You have just warmed the cockles of my heart, Marie! <big smile>



We are all better together than separately. Unlike you, I've basically never
read the original documents (something I want to do).



The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433; as
the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point for
me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was especially
concerned about.



I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard Feudalism
and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
*Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it was
sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they arose
and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested. (And for anyone else
who would like to try slogging through the rather dense legalese, just write
me off-list, and I will be glad to send you a copy.) But, it would actually
be helpful, since Richard's era pre-dated the HenryVIII passage of the
Statute of Uses, to have the earlier chapters of the book that discuss land
law in England from the time of William the Conqueror onward. I will have
to try to track down a copy of the book; I don't want to continue to impose
on my very busy friend Allen, who was nice enough to scan the chapter for
me.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses






Hi Johanne,

Glad this is sorted out. I'm nowhere near 3rd-year medieval law - I do have
a couple of reference books but I'm coming at it from a different direction
- ie I have looked at a lot of 15th century documents and tried to follow
people's disputes, etc, and look up what I encounter along the way. So I've
got a fairly good idea of the sort of legal subterfuges and mix-ups people
tended to get involved in at this period (which was, as someone else pointed
out, a transition period, when the old feudal ways were breaking down or not
really doing the job, but the modern forms of land tenure hadn't yet been
established).

But you have a proper background knowledge of the thread of legal history,
which is something I lack. So we really should be able to do more together
than apart.

Very best,

Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "jltournier1"
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie & Everyone -
>
> As Samwise Gamgee said, "Well, I'm back!"
>
> Thanks for your note, Marie. I sure don't want to get bogged down again in
the previous brouhaha; I just want to say that I was trying to explain from
my rather vague memory of what I had studied about 30 years ago - the
difference between "enfeoffments" in general and "enfeoffments to the use"
in particular. But I knew I had to do some further research to flesh it out.
I knew you knew what you were talking about (more about issues like that
than I do!) - but I wanted to present something that might be "First Year
Medieval Property Law," just to clarify for people like myself who might get
the terms confused. I figure you are more like at about the Third Year
level. <smile> And I was more or less giving some of the historical
background to the 15th. century situation - at least that's what I was
trying to do.
>
> I respect your knowledge, Marie. And I usually agree with your analyses,
which have really taught me a lot about some of the more arcane aspects of
Ricardianism. So, yes, for my part, I want to be friends. After all, we are
all serving under the banner of Richard III.
>
> Maybe, if there is any misunderstanding arising between us in the future,
we can nip a feud in the bud by discussing it off-list first.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > Sorry I over-reacted yesterday morning - I had had very little sleep,
but that is absolutely no excuse. I think we both felt under pressure with
this one, and I was concerned that the essential point about 15th century
trusts was getting lost or negated.
> > Hope we can be friends.
> > Marie
> >
> >
>

>
> The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433; as
> the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point for
> me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was especially
> concerned about.


Just a word of warning - Harley 433 is the record kept by Richard's Privy Seal office; it has nothing to do with his parliament.
But it is an amazing collection of information.



>
> I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard Feudalism
> and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
> *Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it was
> sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
> Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
> conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they arose
> and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
> glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested.


Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.

Marie

Hi, Marie!



Thanks for clarifying that about Harleian 433. I thought it was the record
of Richard's Parliament. But it definitely sounds like a "must have" for the
serious Ricardian. But - what about a collection of the Parliamentary
statutes? Do I recall correctly that you've mentioned searching them online?
And if that is the case, how does one subscribe and how much does it cost?



I will send you that chapter from Alan Sinclair's book forthwith.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses






>
> The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433; as
> the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point for
> me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was especially
> concerned about.

Just a word of warning - Harley 433 is the record kept by Richard's Privy
Seal office; it has nothing to do with his parliament.
But it is an amazing collection of information.

>
> I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard
Feudalism
> and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
> *Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it
was
> sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
> Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
> conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they arose
> and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
> glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested.

Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.

Marie

Hi Johanne,

Thanks for the Sinclair - very much appreciated.
The Parliament Rolls are available on the British History Online website (www.british-history.ac.uk).
It's a fantastic site. A lot of the content anybody can view, but other things - for instance the Parliament Rolls and the Close Rolls - require a subscription; I seem to recall that the cost was about £35 (roughly $55) pa. For me it is well worth it as it saves me library visits. There are more new sources going up all the time. Now I sound like a salesperson.

Marie


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie!
>
>
>
> Thanks for clarifying that about Harleian 433. I thought it was the record
> of Richard's Parliament. But it definitely sounds like a "must have" for the
> serious Ricardian. But - what about a collection of the Parliamentary
> statutes? Do I recall correctly that you've mentioned searching them online?
> And if that is the case, how does one subscribe and how much does it cost?
>
>
>
> I will send you that chapter from Alan Sinclair's book forthwith.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:06 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433; as
> > the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point for
> > me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was especially
> > concerned about.
>
> Just a word of warning - Harley 433 is the record kept by Richard's Privy
> Seal office; it has nothing to do with his parliament.
> But it is an amazing collection of information.
>
> >
> > I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard
> Feudalism
> > and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
> > *Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it
> was
> > sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
> > Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
> > conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they arose
> > and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
> > glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested.
>
> Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Books I'm always returning to: 


The House of Lords in the Middle Ages - J. Enoch Powell (yes, him)

The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages - Chris Given-Wilson

The Decline of English Feudalism - J. M. Bean

The Nobility of Later Medieval England - K. B. McFarland

Historical Studies of the English Parliament (2 vols) - E. B. Fryde & E. Miller



All available on Amazon, and quite affordable 2nd hand 

Much more informative than narrative histories, though perhaps a little dry for historical novel fans.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 21:05
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses


 

>
> The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433; as
> the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point for
> me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was especially
> concerned about.

Just a word of warning - Harley 433 is the record kept by Richard's Privy Seal office; it has nothing to do with his parliament.
But it is an amazing collection of information.

>
> I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard Feudalism
> and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
> *Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it was
> sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
> Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
> conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they arose
> and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
> glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested.

Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.

Marie

Thanks for the info! I’m definitely interested in it – it sounds like there
is a lot that is of interest on the site.



Parliament Rolls I know, but what, pray tell, are Close Rolls? I am amazed
after reading and studying about Britain for most of my life, how much I
really don’t know of the details of British history and culture.



Prof. Sinclair’s book is a wonderful book on Real Property Law – packs a lot
of good info into a small space and, of course, in our case, it’s nice that
he includes a lot of the historical background that we are interested in. As
I mentioned before, he was my professor of Real Property Law, and he was one
of the best. I was saddened to recently learn that he is now deceased.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses






Hi Johanne,

Thanks for the Sinclair - very much appreciated.
The Parliament Rolls are available on the British History Online website
(www.british-history.ac.uk).
It's a fantastic site. A lot of the content anybody can view, but other
things - for instance the Parliament Rolls and the Close Rolls - require a
subscription; I seem to recall that the cost was about £35 (roughly $55) pa.
For me it is well worth it as it saves me library visits. There are more new
sources going up all the time. Now I sound like a salesperson.

Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie!
>
>
>
> Thanks for clarifying that about Harleian 433. I thought it was the record
> of Richard's Parliament. But it definitely sounds like a "must have" for
the
> serious Ricardian. But - what about a collection of the Parliamentary
> statutes? Do I recall correctly that you've mentioned searching them
online?
> And if that is the case, how does one subscribe and how much does it cost?
>
>
>
> I will send you that chapter from Alan Sinclair's book forthwith.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:06 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433;
as
> > the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point
for
> > me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was
especially
> > concerned about.
>
> Just a word of warning - Harley 433 is the record kept by Richard's Privy
> Seal office; it has nothing to do with his parliament.
> But it is an amazing collection of information.
>
> >
> > I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard
> Feudalism
> > and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
> > *Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it
> was
> > sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
> > Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
> > conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they
arose
> > and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
> > glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested.
>
> Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, David! I'm going to compile a Want List of books, and I'll put your list on it. I would imagine that quite a few of them would be available on Google Books, if I want to check them out in more detail?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses





Books I'm always returning to:

The House of Lords in the Middle Ages - J. Enoch Powell (yes, him)

The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages - Chris Given-Wilson

The Decline of English Feudalism - J. M. Bean

The Nobility of Later Medieval England - K. B. McFarland

Historical Studies of the English Parliament (2 vols) - E. B. Fryde & E. Miller

All available on Amazon, and quite affordable 2nd hand

Much more informative than narrative histories, though perhaps a little dry for historical novel fans.

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 21:05
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses




>
> The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433; as
> the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point for
> me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was especially
> concerned about.

Just a word of warning - Harley 433 is the record kept by Richard's Privy Seal office; it has nothing to do with his parliament.
But it is an amazing collection of information.

>
> I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard Feudalism
> and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
> *Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it was
> sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
> Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
> conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they arose
> and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
> glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested.

Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.

Marie

I've tried posting links but they're not working at the moment.


Given-Wilson has a preview on Amazon.



Bean is on Google Books with a  few pages omitted, but including the exhaustive chapters on Uses.


Fryde & Miller also have previews on Google Books.  This includes Lander's article on Attainder and Forfeiture (in Vol II); unfortunately skipping through it seems that the pages on the Countess of Warwick are omitted...

Still, they give you a good idea of the contents if you're thinking of a purchase.


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V0Q4AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=fryde+miller&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MeSfULm9EsSv0QXUuYDgBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false






________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 22:38
Subject: Recommended books (was RE: Enfeoffment versus Uses)


 
Thanks, David! I'm going to compile a Want List of books, and I'll put your list on it. I would imagine that quite a few of them would be available on Google Books, if I want to check them out in more detail?

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses

Books I'm always returning to:

The House of Lords in the Middle Ages - J. Enoch Powell (yes, him)

The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages - Chris Given-Wilson

The Decline of English Feudalism - J. M. Bean

The Nobility of Later Medieval England - K. B. McFarland

Historical Studies of the English Parliament (2 vols) - E. B. Fryde & E. Miller

All available on Amazon, and quite affordable 2nd hand

Much more informative than narrative histories, though perhaps a little dry for historical novel fans.

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 21:05
Subject: Re: Enfeoffment versus Uses

>
> The next big Ricardian purchase I'm hoping to make is Harleian Ms. 433; as
> the record of Richard's Parliament, it should be a good starting point for
> me to learn about Richard's statutes and the issues that he was especially
> concerned about.

Just a word of warning - Harley 433 is the record kept by Richard's Privy Seal office; it has nothing to do with his parliament.
But it is an amazing collection of information.

>
> I have the book that I mentioned by Prof. J. G. Bellamy, *Bastard Feudalism
> and the Law.* And I've gotten one chapter from Alan Sinclair's book,
> *Introduction to Real Property Law,* (not sure which edition it is - it was
> sent to me by one of my lawyer friends) - but it's the chapter on the
> Statute of Uses and the development of the modern concept of land
> conveyancing. It does give some of the background on Uses, how they arose
> and what their limitations were. The chapter is not too long - I will be
> glad to send you a copy, if you would be interested.

Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.

Marie