confused capacities & agreements

[parzival]

That is not what blackstone says

Um, why do I give notice to what Blackstone has said, when it is not a legal source I can place any reliance on. That and it appears you are quoting older versions which makes it more irrelevant.

once again dodged the point, that is SETTLED LAND ACT APPLIES AND IS PART OF THE COMMON LAW....

Let me clearly undodge this for you, NO IT ISN'T. In the US it has absolutely no relevance at all. NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NUNC PRO TUNC. It is meaningless.

All your posts seem to do is demonstrate you total lack of understanding of the current legal system, legal research, common law, and prehaps even common sense. You may think you understand and have a point to make, but it really is all gobble goop. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a court, and would never be given any consideration for a legal publication. It is more appropriate in the fiction section, or as part of an alternative history novel.

For the love of everything sane, please stop implying Blackstone has any authority today, and that everyone must be bound by Canadian or UK law. Just because the "common law" evolved from the UK doesn't mean it is relevant to me today on the US. Heck, it likely isn't relevant in the UK or Canada to the extent superceded by more modern statutes and laws. You need to understand how that process works, to know that you are using current law when analysing a legal issue. You are not doing that and therefore by a combination or irrelevant and outdated sources you are trying to prove a current point, and it just doesn't work.

ok sure lets toss USA and all other countries into this mix that use the law of property....

please explain this then?

Meanwell v. Meanwell, 1941 CanLII 456 (MB CA)
In Doe d. Hanington y. McFadden, (c 836) z N.B.R. z6o (Berton's
Reports), Chipman, C.J., at p. 267, says:
The rule laid down by Blackstone is that "Colonists carry with them
only so much of the English law as is applicable to their own situation
and the condition of an English colony; such, for instance, as the
general rules of inheritance, and of protection from personal injuries:"
The same doctrine is maintained by Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Vaughan,
(1769) 4 Burr. 2494; Campbell v. Hall, (1774) Lofft, 655; 20 Howell's
State Trials ; 239. In the case of The Attorney-General v. Stewart, (1817)
2 Mer. 143, in which the question was whether the Statute of Mortmain
(9 Geo. 2, ch. 36) extended to the Island of Grenada, Sir William
Grant, M.R., also adopts substantially the same rule, and makes the
determination of the point to depend upon this consideration—"Whether
it be a law of local policy, adapted solely to the country in which it was
made, or a general regulation of property, equally applicable to any
country in which it is by the rules of English law that property is
governed." He comes to the conclusion that the Mortmain Act is
quite inapplicable to Grenada or any other colony, because "in its
causes, its provisions, its qualifications, and its exceptions, it is a law
wholly English; calculated for purposes of local policy, complicated
with local establishments, and incapable, without great incongruity in
the effect, of being transferred as it stands into the code of any other
country."

how about per auter vie


what about this? josh blackman and the usa law course that is the same foundation as harvard law wrong ?
Class 10 – 2/15/18 Estates I: Fee Simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc3HyIf ... rb&index=9

[NYGman]

You seem to miss the point again, property law applies to real property transactions and nothing more. A Canadian case has no application and I am not watching a video by a law professor, I went to law school, and am not repeating that again. I stand by my last post and you have added nothing in this post.

Edit: and quit with the irrelevant Blackstone, it isn't law, legally binding, or even useful when it looks like you are pasting from an ancient version. While I may have a Blackstone law dictionary, it is just for reference and has no value as a citation.

[parzival]

You seem to miss the point again, property law applies to real property transactions and nothing more. A Canadian case has no application and I am not watching a video by a law professor, I went to law school, and am not repeating that again. I stand by my last post and you have added nothing in this post.

north dakota state university should understand property law i would think.....

Fee simple absolute
The closest thing to absolute ownership is called “fee simple absolute.” With property held this way, the owner (or owners) generally has power to sell it, borrow against it, receive income from it, lease it and transfer it to others during life or at death.

.

Life estates and remainder interests
A more limited form of property interest is a life estate. Holders of a life estate, or life tenants, share property interests with “remaindermen” (people designated to receive a transfer of the property after the death of the life tenant).

Life tenants manage and receive income from property during their lifetimes but cannot dispose of the property at death. Life tenants generally may not sell or mortgage the property without the permission of the remaindermen and are responsible for property taxes, mortgage payments and adequate property maintenance. Note that the terms and provisions of a life estate may vary, depending on the instrument creating it.

https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/ndestateplannin ... yownership

BTW josh blackman is a USA law teacher.......

[NYGman]

north dakota state university should understand property law i would think.....

Fee simple absolute
The closest thing to absolute ownership is called “fee simple absolute.” With property held this way, the owner (or owners) generally has power to sell it, borrow against it, receive income from it, lease it and transfer it to others during life or at death.

Life estates and remainder interests
A more limited form of property interest is a life estate. Holders of a life estate, or life tenants, share property interests with “remaindermen” (people designated to receive a transfer of the property after the death of the life tenant).

Life tenants manage and receive income from property during their lifetimes but cannot dispose of the property at death. Life tenants generally may not sell or mortgage the property without the permission of the remaindermen and are responsible for property taxes, mortgage payments and adequate property maintenance. Note that the terms and provisions of a life estate may vary, depending on the instrument creating it.

https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/ndestateplannin ... yownership

BTW josh blackman is a USA law teacher.......

Those statements are correct but when you try to apply them to your trust concept that is where it fails. If only you quit here, we would agree.

[parzival]

north dakota state university should understand property law i would think.....

Fee simple absolute
The closest thing to absolute ownership is called “fee simple absolute.” With property held this way, the owner (or owners) generally has power to sell it, borrow against it, receive income from it, lease it and transfer it to others during life or at death.

Life estates and remainder interests
A more limited form of property interest is a life estate. Holders of a life estate, or life tenants, share property interests with “remaindermen” (people designated to receive a transfer of the property after the death of the life tenant).

Life tenants manage and receive income from property during their lifetimes but cannot dispose of the property at death. Life tenants generally may not sell or mortgage the property without the permission of the remaindermen and are responsible for property taxes, mortgage payments and adequate property maintenance. Note that the terms and provisions of a life estate may vary, depending on the instrument creating it.

https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/ndestateplannin ... yownership

BTW josh blackman is a USA law teacher.......

Those statements are correct but when you try to apply them to your trust concept that is where it fails.

Commentaries on American Law (1826-30)
CHANCELLOR JAMES KENT
VOLUME 4
PART VI – OF THE LAW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY, CON’T
Lect. 53: Of Estates in Fee
Lect. 54: Of Estates for Life
Lect. 55: Of Estates for Years, at Will, or at Sufferance
Lect. 56: Of Estates upon Condition
Lect. 57: Of the Law of Mortgage
Lect. 58: Of Estates in Remainder
Lect. 59: Of Executory Devises
Lect. 60: Of Uses and Trusts
Lect. 61: Of Powers
Lect. 62: Of Estates in Reversion
Lect. 63: Of a Joint Interest in Land
Lect. 64: Of Title by Descent

https://lonang.com/library/reference/ke ... rican-law/
i would not brag about being a lawyer, since your implying a lie, even your own scholars state it, go read it....

[parzival]

and a little help.

LECTURE 53
Of Estates In Fee
The perusal of the former volumes of these Commentaries, has prepared the student to enter upon the doctrine of real estates, which is by far the most artificial and complex branch of our municipal law. We commenced with a general view of the international law of modern civilized nations, and endeavored to ascertain and assert those great elementary maxims of universal justice, and those broad principles of national policy and conventional regulation, which constitute the code of public law. The Government of the United States next engaged our attention, and we were led to examine and explain the nature and reason of its powers, as distributed in departments, and the constitutional limits of its sphere of action, as well as the restrictions imposed upon the original sovereignty of the several members of the Union. We then passed to the sources of the municipal law of the State governments, and treated of personal rights, and the domestic relations which are naturally the objects of our earliest sympathies, and most permanent attachments. Our studies were next directed to the laws of personal property, and of commercial contracts, which fill a wide space in all civil institutions; for they are of constant application in the extended intercourse and complicated business of mankind. In all the topics of discussion, we have been, and must continue to be, confined to an elementary view and sweeping outline of the subject; for the plan of these essays will not permit me to descend to that variety and minuteness of detail, which would be oppressive to the general reader, though very proper to guide the practical lawyer through the endless distinctions which accompany and qualify the general principles of law.

and goes on to say

The most simple division of estates of inheritance is that mentioned by Sir William Blackstone,7 into inheritances absolute or fee simple, and inheritances limited; and these limited fees he subdivides into qualified and conditional fees. This was according to Lord Coke’s division, and he deemed it to be the most genuine and apt division of a fee.8 Mr. Preston, in his Treatise on Estates,9 has, however, gone into more complex divisions, and he classes fees into fees simple, fees determinable, fees qualified, fees conditional, and fees tail. The subject is full of perplexity, under the distinctions which he has attempted to preserve between fees determinable and fees qualified; for he admits that every qualified fee is also a determinable fee. I shall, for the sake of brevity and perspicuity, follow the more comprehensive division of Lord Coke, and divide the subject into fees simple, fees qualified, fees conditional, and fees tail.

uh ohhhhhh but blackstone does not apply hmmmmmm

and why does it apply, the law of ......

Meanwell v. Meanwell, 1941 CanLII 456 (MB CA)
In Doe d. Hanington y. McFadden, (c 836) z N.B.R. z6o (Berton's
Reports), Chipman, C.J., at p. 267, says:
The rule laid down by Blackstone is that "Colonists carry with them
only so much of the English law as is applicable to their own situation
and the condition of an English colony; such, for instance, as the
general rules of inheritance, and of protection from personal injuries:"
The same doctrine is maintained by Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Vaughan,
(1769) 4 Burr. 2494; Campbell v. Hall, (1774) Lofft, 655; 20 Howell's
State Trials ; 239. In the case of The Attorney-General v. Stewart, (1817)
2 Mer. 143, in which the question was whether the Statute of Mortmain
(9 Geo. 2, ch. 36) extended to the Island of Grenada, Sir William
Grant, M.R., also adopts substantially the same rule, and makes the
determination of the point to depend upon this consideration—"Whether
it be a law of local policy, adapted solely to the country in which it was
made, or a general regulation of property, equally applicable to any
country in which it is by the rules of English law that property is
governed." He comes to the conclusion that the Mortmain Act is
quite inapplicable to Grenada or any other colony, because "in its
causes, its provisions, its qualifications, and its exceptions, it is a law
wholly English; calculated for purposes of local policy, complicated
with local establishments, and incapable, without great incongruity in
the effect, of being transferred as it stands into the code of any other
country."

[parzival]

north dakota state university should understand property law i would think.....

Fee simple absolute
The closest thing to absolute ownership is called “fee simple absolute.” With property held this way, the owner (or owners) generally has power to sell it, borrow against it, receive income from it, lease it and transfer it to others during life or at death.

Life estates and remainder interests
A more limited form of property interest is a life estate. Holders of a life estate, or life tenants, share property interests with “remaindermen” (people designated to receive a transfer of the property after the death of the life tenant).

Life tenants manage and receive income from property during their lifetimes but cannot dispose of the property at death. Life tenants generally may not sell or mortgage the property without the permission of the remaindermen and are responsible for property taxes, mortgage payments and adequate property maintenance. Note that the terms and provisions of a life estate may vary, depending on the instrument creating it.

https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/ndestateplannin ... yownership

BTW josh blackman is a USA law teacher.......

Those statements are correct but when you try to apply them to your trust concept that is where it fails. If only you quit here, we would agree.

how does the concept of trust fail with a reversionary interest?
what is annexed to a reversionary interest in property in fee simple, who does not own it, so how do you not see a trust?
lets not play stupid now.....
if everyone would stop dodging the estate and the fee simple attached then we could get somewhere....

Commentaries on American Law (1826-30)
CHANCELLOR JAMES KENT
LECTURE 62
Of Estates In Reversion
A REVERSION is the return of land to the grantor, and his heirs, after the grant is over;1 or, according to the formal definition in the New York Revised Statutes,2 it is the residue of an estate left in the grantor, or his heirs, or in the heirs of a testator, commencing in possession on the determination of a particular estate granted or devised. It necessarily assumes, that the original owner has not parted with his whole estate3 or interest in the land; and, therefore, if he grants land in tail, or for life, or years, he has an interest in the reversion, because “he has not departed with his whole estate. If A. has only a possibility of reverter, as in the case of a qualified or conditional fee at common law, he has no reversion; and such a distinct interest arose, as we have already seen,4 after the conditional fee at common law was, by the statute de donis, turned into an estate tail.

The doctrine of reversions is said, by Sir William Blackstone,5 to have been plainly derived from the feudal constitution. It would have been more correct to have said, that some of the incidents attached to a reversion were of feudal growth, such as fealty, and the varying rule of descent between the cases of a reversion arising out of the original estate, and one limited by the grant of a third person. Reversion, in the general sense, as being a return of the estate to the original owner, after the limited estate carved out of it had determined, must be familiar to the laws of all nations who have admitted of private property in land. The practice of hiring land for a limited time, and paying rent to the owner of the soil, (and which is one of the usual incidents to a reversion,) was not only known to the Roman law, but it was regulated in the code of the ancient Hindus.6

The reversion arises by operation of law, and not by deed or will, and it is a vested interest or estate, inasmuch as the person entitled to it has a fixed right of future enjoyment. It is an incorporeal hereditament, and may be conveyed either in whole or in part, by grant, without livery of seizin.7 Reversions expectant on the determination of estates for years, are immediate assets in the hands of the heir;8 but the reversion expectant on the determination of an estate for life, is not immediate assets during the continuance of the life estate, and the creditor takes judgment for assets in futuro.9 If the reversion be expectant on an estate tail, it is not assets during the continuance of the estate tail, and the reason assigned is, that the reversion is of little or no value, since it is in the power of the tenant in tail to destroy it when he pleases.10 But in Kinarton v. Clarke,11 Lord Hardwicke considered it inaccurate to say that such a reversion was not assets, for there was a possibility of its becoming an estate in possession, and the creditor might take judgment against the heir, on that possibility, for assets, quando acciderint, and which would, operate whenever the heir obtained seizin of the reversion. In the mean time, as it was admitted, the reversion could not be sold, nor the heir compelled to sell it; and when it comes to the possession of the heir, he takes it cum onere, subject to all leases and covenants made by the tenant in tail while he had the estate.12

The reversioner having a vested interest in the reversion, is entitled to his action for an injury done to the inheritance.13 He is entitled to an action on the case, in the nature of waste, against a stranger, while the estate is in the possession of the tenant. The injury must be of such a permanent nature as to affect the reversionary right.14 The usual incidents to the reversion, under the English law, are fealty and rent. The former, in the feudal sense, does not exist any longer in this country, but the latter, which is a very important incident, passes with a grant or assignment of the reversion. It is not inseparable, and may be severed from the reversion, and excepted out of the grant, by special words.15

[NYGman]

And there you go into irrelevance, wish you quit while ahead.

[parzival]

KISS
does the settled land act 1925 apply in the provinces of canada?

well?

[parzival]

And there you go into irrelevance, wish you quit while ahead.

how about this then?

2014 New Jersey Revised Statutes
Title 46 - PROPERTY
Section 46:3-13 - Fee simple; creation by deed; construction favorable to creation
Universal Citation: NJ Rev Stat § 46:3-13 (2014)
46:3-13. Fee simple; creation by deed; construction favorable to creation
Every deed conveying lands shall, unless an exception be made therein, be construed to include all the estate, right, title, interest, use, possession, property, claim and demand whatsoever, both in law and equity, of the grantor, including the fee simple if he had such an estate, of, in and to the premises conveyed, with the appurtenances, and the word "heirs" shall not be necessary in any deed to effect the conveyance of the fee simple; and every deed conveying lands to executors, trustees or other fiduciaries, in which the granting clause or habendum clause runs to the "successors and assigns" , shall, unless other words of limitation are used, be construed as conveying the fee simple of the grantor if he had such an estate, to the same effect as if the words "heirs and assigns" had been used.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey ... n-46-3-13/

so who is this grantor?? mister lawyer?

and where does the jurisprudence to municipal law and law of property come from for usa and these other countries using them?

[Dnatural]

Let me clearly undodge this for you, NO IT ISN'T. In the US it has absolutely no relevance at all. NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NUNC PRO TUNC. It is meaningless.

All your posts seem to do is demonstrate you total lack of understanding of the current legal system, legal research, common law, and prehaps even common sense. You may think you understand and have a point to make, but it really is all gobble goop. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a court, and would never be given any consideration for a legal publication. It is more appropriate in the fiction section, or as part of an alternative history novel.

Well in the basic sense I will have to say this is a true statement as it pertains to the US legal system not being relevant to the strict land settlement.

The US only promulgates legislation for the managing of the waste created by the tenants upon the land and so publicly, in courts of law, the lawyers only speak to this under a defined jurisdiction, which is under equity, so equitable use of land in fee simple.

They (lawyers), as I have mentioned before, have no duty or power to bring matters of the land settlement into a fictional construct that only argues matters of abstract fact. I mean shit the phrase 'In God We Trust' and We Believe in the Supremacy of God' fits well into the mosaic of a lawyers basis to discuss terms abstract in nature.

Parzival (I believe) is discussing the law which gave the law you now practice its right to manage the use of land called property and estates. The law lawyers deal with are what is termed incorporeal hereditaments... see not corporeal.

Parzival is trying to give your group the connection to the corporeal as it is also of logic (not filtered through abstract reasoning) that in order for the fiction to operate it must've came from what is real. This is the preemption blanketing all the law that lawyers and the like practice therefrom... it can never be repealed but instead overlooked through the confusion of agreements. Shit it happened in history after 1290, before 1535, after 1688 and now evident here.

I mean it is like Parzival discussing where babies come from and you peeps responding what does that have to do with an adult.

Common law of the land has to be in effect in order for equity to derive its value from. The issue is Parzival knows how to access it as it is impossible that equity, a subordinate law to the common law of the land, be able to repeal that which created it. Like saying b/c everyone now believes in Santa Claus there is no more need for its history... and so this is what the Quatloos'ers are doing in essence... kneeling before the fiction all-the-while thinking they have a standing upon the land... you don't I'm afraid and either does US or CANADA.

All property technically, that is owned by a citizen or lawyer, is in abeyance under the common law. Look it up. I sure in hell did not write the laws you are all subject to. So perhaps reread what Parzival is trying to show, through captures and precedent, with what I have stated and see if you can arrive to where I or Parzival are at... and please bring in proof, not conjecture, lambasting his/her posts with fear and beliefs instead of proof that the law clearly repealed the right to corporeal hereditaments.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

who come here, pose gibberish questions which are incapable and unworthy of being answered. Then, they fly away to more congenial forums, and crow about how they gave the Quatloosers WHAT FOR, and the Quatloosers were too afraid of them to make a worthy response (because we couldn't refute their screeds, y'know).

For newcomers, this is also known as Pigeon Chess. If you are stupid enough to play chess with pigeon, no matter how well you play, it's going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

We have been blessed with two pigeons!

[parzival]

Let me clearly undodge this for you, NO IT ISN'T. In the US it has absolutely no relevance at all. NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NUNC PRO TUNC. It is meaningless.

All your posts seem to do is demonstrate you total lack of understanding of the current legal system, legal research, common law, and prehaps even common sense. You may think you understand and have a point to make, but it really is all gobble goop. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a court, and would never be given any consideration for a legal publication. It is more appropriate in the fiction section, or as part of an alternative history novel.

Well in the basic sense I will have to say this is a true statement as it pertains to the US legal system not being relevant to the strict land settlement.

the statement is only true if the grantor of the original settlement has not given notice...

as conveyed by coke.

A Readable Edition of Coke Upon Littleton pdf page 53
A lawful or pure inheritance] Here it is well put in the disjunctive lawful or pure, for every fee-simple is not lawful. A disseisor, abator,intruder, usurper, &c. Have a fee-simple, has it either by purchase or descent. If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion,abatement,usurpation, &c.
Pg 511 pdf
But since Littleton wrote, all uses are transferred by act of parliament into possession, so that the case which littleton here puts is thereby altered. Yet it is necessary to be known what the common law was before the making of the statute, [otherwise the application of the statute could not be discovered]
nota. A use is a trust or confidence reposed in some other, which is not out of the land, but as a thing collateral thereto and annexed in privity to the estate of the land, and to the person touching the land, scilicet, that Cestui Que us shall take the profit, and that the ter-tenant shall make an estate according to his direction. So that cestui que use had neither jus un re nor jus ad rem, but only only a confidence and trust, for which he had no remedy by common law, but for breach of trust his only remedy was by subpena in chancery.

the difference is disseisor, no one is making issue with a right to what is held in trust.

A disseisor, abator,intruder, usurper, &c. Have a fee-simple, has it either by purchase or descent.

where disseisin is where one with a right makes issue and the one in possession now turns into a trustee by implication....

If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion,abatement,usurpation, &c.

the required injury for this issue being deforcement....

[parzival]

who come here, pose gibberish questions which are incapable and unworthy of being answered. Then, they fly away to more congenial forums, and crow about how they gave the Quatloosers WHAT FOR, and the Quatloosers were too afraid of them to make a worthy response (because we couldn't refute their screeds, y'know).

For newcomers, this is also known as Pigeon Chess. If you are stupid enough to play chess with pigeon, no matter how well you play, it's going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

We have been blessed with two pigeons!

The 2019 Florida Statutes

PART IV
EMINENT DOMAIN
166.401 Right of eminent domain; procedure; compliance with limitations.
166.411 Eminent domain; uses or purposes.
166.401 Right of eminent domain; procedure; compliance with limitations.—
(1) All municipalities in the state may exercise the right and power of eminent domain; that is, the right to appropriate property within the state, except state or federal property, for the uses or purposes authorized pursuant to this part. The absolute fee simple title to all property so taken and acquired shall vest in such municipal corporation unless the municipality seeks to condemn a particular right or estate in such property.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0166.html

Commentaries on American Law (1826-30)
CHANCELLOR JAMES KENT
LECTURE 60
Of Uses and Trusts https://lonang.com/library/reference/ke ... w/kent-60/

The equitable doctrine of uses was, by the statute, turned into the courts of law, and became an additional branch of the law of real property. Uses had new and peculiar qualities and capacities. They had none of the lineaments of the feudal system, which had been deeply impressed upon estates at common law. Their influence was sufficient to abate the rigor, and, in many respects, to destroy the simplicity of the ancient doctrine. When the use was changed from an equitable to a legal interest, the same qualities which were proper to it in its fiduciary state, followed it when it became a legal estate. The estate in the use, when it became an interest in the land, under the statute, became liable to all those rules to which common law estates were liable, but the qualities which had attended uses in equity, were not separated from them when they changed their nature, and became an estate in the land itself. If they were contingent in their fiduciary state, they became contingent interests in the land. They were still liable to be overreached by the exercise of powers, and to be shifted, and to cease, by clauses of cesser inserted in the deeds of settlement. The statute transferred the use, with its accompanying conditions and limitations, into the land.11 Contingent, shifting, and springing uses, presented a method of creating a future interest in land, and executory devises owed their origin to the doctrine of,shifting or springing uses. But uses differ from executory devises in this respect; that there must be a person seized to the uses when the contingency happens, or they cannot be executed by the statute. If the estate of the feoffee to such uses be destroyed by alienation or otherwise before the contingency arises, the use is destroyed for ever, whereas, by an executory devise, the freehold is transferred to the future devisee.12 Contingent uses are so far similar to contingent remainders, that they also require a preceding estate to support them, and take effect, if at all, when the preceding estate determines. The statute of uses meant to exclude all possibility of future uses,13 but the necessity of the allowance of free modifications of property, introduced the doctrine, that the use need not be executed the instant the conveyance is made, and that the operation of the statute might be suspended until the use should arise, provided the suspension was confined within reasonable limits as to time.14 In the Duke of Norfolk’s case, Lord Nottingham was of opinion, (as we have already seen,) that there was no inconvenience, nor any of the mischiefs of a perpetuity, in permitting future uses, under the various names of springing, shifting, contingent, or secondary uses, to be limited to the same period, to which the law permits the vesting of an executory devise to be postponed. Uses and devises became parallel doctrines, and what, in the one case, was a future use, was, in the other, an executory devise.

The statute having turned uses into legal estates, they were thereafter conveyed as legal estates, in the same manner, and by the same words.15 The statute intended to have destroyed uses in their distinct state, but it was not the object of it to interfere with the new modes of conveyance to uses, and the manner of raising uses out of the seizin created by a lawful transfer, stood as it had existed before. If it was really the object of the statute of uses to abolish uses and trusts, and have none other than legal estates, the wants and convenience of mankind have triumphed over that intention, and the beneficial and ostensible ownerships of estates were kept as distinct as ever. The cestui que use takes the legal estate according to such quality, manner and form, as he had in the use. The complex and modified interests annexed to uses were engrafted upon the legal estate, and upon that principle it was held to be competent in conveyances to uses, to revoke a former limitation of a use, and to substitute others. The classification of uses into shifting, or secondary, springing, and future, or contingent, and resulting uses, seems to be necessary to distinguish with precision their nice and varying characters, and they all may be included under the general denomination of future uses.

wonders why no one will answer what a life tenant is, or what the estate is, and its effects, or answer any of the real factors, since being lawyers must understand subject matter, and why refuse or neglect to even acknowledge it playing within the grey area of trust law. me not stupid....

yet by not truly knowing is, so what is it, ignorance or a game......

[parzival]

KISS
does the settled land act 1925 apply in the provinces of canada?

well?

[wserra]

i am very busy currently

Clearly not busy enough.

[Chaos]

i am very busy currently

Clearly not busy enough.

it's the first somewhat truthful thing he's said. he is busy spamming this board with bs

[eric]

KISS
does the settled land act 1925 apply in the provinces of canada?

well?

Short answer: No
Long answer: Yes, except and unless the various provisions in the Act have been over-ridden by subsequent legislation. In the particular Manitoba case you mentioned they have been, along with BC and Ontario for sure. Alberta is probably the last hold out and it's being cleaned up this legislative sitting.
BTW, IANAL, I'm an effin' pig farmer. The only reason I'm showing any interest in this is because it means I can finally settle a ten year old estate that includes a life trust. It's either that or hope one beneficiary meets an untimely demise. I'm not going to even bother generating copy pasta from every province to show exactly where and how it's been over-ridden because I have much better things to do with my time and that's why I hire professionals.

[Dnatural]

Without using the lawyer trained-brain we then can develop a type of syllogism (a law maxim to which equity is void of using common law maxims) whereby fiction can come from law but law cannot come from fiction, to which <I> Parzival is forming his/her argument.

Maxims of law are irrelevant in law and have no value

My point exactly and thank for your agreement. What we have just agreed upon is that the law a lawyer argues, in the courts of today, is void of self evident truths established in the common law maxims. It has to be or equity law and the arguing over limited liability contracts would never exist.

Btw if all conveyancing of property today is for a use of property (evident by the acceptance of equity law being superior) then who has the absolute ownership? Where is it if not in a trust as a trust is simply composing a confidence in another and if all citizens and lawyers are users of land then their master must be that which is holding the use.

BUT the law [before equity] can never be repealed by the fiction as this would be a contradiction in relative (not abstract) terms and would logically serve to dissolve any & all agreements made therefrom... no employment for our livery of 'Roman Church' created [union] lawyers I'm afraid.

Laws can be replaced or repealed or superceded, that is the nature of things. Law changes, evolves, and grows as we do. The distinction you are making between fiction and living man is a fiction in itself and is not relevant.

It is not relevant in this current jurisprudence (under a juristic unit). In the real world, that which is of substance, you know the stuff you eat to survive, it is relevant and guess what it can never be repealed when one leaves the juristic unit to return to what is real. If it is not written in law that a man can release his person then it would be slavery and as such the law lawyers argue would be void.

I just don't see how some on here are void of proof and common sense. Seriously dudes. Stop retracting to your safety words like we are rapping you. Its okay... self evident truth can never be repealed even though it destroys the ability for a lawyer to earn his true keep. Maybe this is the sore spot.

[HardyW]

When I worked in the local university, the students set up a used book exchange, so that one year's students could make some money selling on their text books to the next year's cohort.

Some subjects, like mathematics, history, maybe psychology, would use the same books for many years as the subject matter rarely changed.

Some others, like biochemistry or indeed anything related to medicine, or perhaps particle physics or modern politics, the list of books needed would be updated every few years.

Law books from last year were basically unsellable as the students were told they needed the latest editions to be fully up to date. So in due course the book exchange stopped accepting most law text books.

And here is Parzival quoting a book which will celebrate its 200th birthday very soon, describing the effect of the Statute of Uses which became law nearly half a millennium ago.