CESTUI QUE VIE ACT OF 1666 PDF

An analogy exists between cestui que uses and a usufructus usufruct or the bequest of a fideicommissum. These all tended to create a feoffement to one person for the use of another. Gilbert [3] writes, also seen in Blackstone : [4] "that they answer more to the fideicommissum than the usufructus of the civil law. Others argue that the comparison between cestui que and Roman law is merely superficial.

Author:Aram Daile
Country:Mauritius
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Spiritual
Published (Last):2 June 2016
Pages:210
PDF File Size:10.86 Mb
ePub File Size:17.72 Mb
ISBN:350-5-93355-165-1
Downloads:56251
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:Bataur



An analogy exists between cestui que uses and a usufructus usufruct or the bequest of a fideicommissum. These all tended to create a feoffement to one person for the use of another. Gilbert [3] writes, also seen in Blackstone : [4] "that they answer more to the fideicommissum than the usufructus of the civil law.

Others argue that the comparison between cestui que and Roman law is merely superficial. The transfer of land for the use of one person for certain purposes to be carried out either in the lifetime or after the death of the person conveying it has its basis in Germanic law.

It was popularly held that land could be transferred for the use from one person to another in local custom. The practice was called Salman or Treuhand. Sala is German for "transfer". The earliest appearance of cestui que in the medieval period was the feoffee to uses, which like the Salman, held on account of another. This was called the cestui que use. It was because the feoffor could impose on him many various duties that landowners acquired through his instrumentality the power to do many things with their land.

This was a to avoid the rigidity of medieval common law of land and its uses. Germanic law was familiar with the idea that a man who holds property on account of, or to the use of another is bound to fulfill his trust. Frankish formulas from the Merovingian period describe property given to a church ad opus sancti illius.

Mercian books in the ninth century convey land ad opus monachorum. The Domesday Book refers to geld or money, sac and soc held in ad opus regus, or in reginae or vicecomitis. The laws of William I of England speak of the sheriff holding money al os le rei "for the use of the king". In England it was the invention of ecclesiastics who wanted to escape the Statute of Mortmain. The goal was to obtain a conveyance of an estate to a friendly person or corporation, with the intent that the use of the estate would reside with the original owner.

From this came the Old French words os or oes". During the Crusades , and other wars on the Continent, landowners might be gone for long periods of time.

Others might be absent because of business adventures or religious pilgrimages. There was no assurance they would ever return home. The cestui que use allowed them to leave a trusted friend or relative with the sort of powers, discretions and they hoped, the duties. Today, this power would be called the " power of attorney ".

Religious orders such as Franciscans , Cistercians , Benedictines and other mendicant orders took vows of poverty, yet retained the use of donated property. Cestui que use allowed them the benefits of land without legal ownership. Typical medieval patterns[ edit ] Derek Roebuck [16] has given the following typical fact patterns which were often found in medieval cestui que use: Example 1: Albert is the owner of a landholding called Blackacre. This could be to do a job, such as collect rents and profits for the purpose of passing them to a third person, Lucy.

This was nothing more than a clever legal device with Richard playing either an active or passive role. Example 2: If Jane women could engage in cestui que use , granted Blackacre to Charles to the use of David, then David became the beneficial owner and Jane could not vary or detract from that ownership.

Example 3: If Mary wanted to grant Blackacre away from her direct heir James, to her younger son Jasper, then she might well do so by a grant of Richard to the use of Jasper in tail, remainder to James in fee simple.

Only Richard had a legal estate, the interests of Jasper and James being equitable analogues of a legal fee tail and fee simple in remainder. Example 4: If Mary wanted to make a will of the equitable ownership of Blackacre, she would be able to do so by a grant to Richard to the use of herself, Mary. By this method, Mary could keep her wishes secret until her death when her will would be read, and would prevail.

This was a way to defeat primogeniture inheritance. Example 5: Uses were so common by the middle of the fifteenth century that they were presumed to be in existence even if no intention could be proved. If Martin sold Blackacre to Martha, but did not go through the formal routines of feoffment to complete the conveyance, Martha could not become the legal owner. But in equity, Martin held the land to the cestui que use of Martha.

It would have been unconscionable for him to do otherwise having taken her money for the sale of Blackacre. Example 6: Albert might convey Blackacre to Richard for the use of Jane. In this case, Richard was called the " feoffee of uses ".

Jane was the "cestui que use". This was short for "cestui a qui use le feoffment fuit fait", i. Cestui que as a method of fraud[ edit ] From the Doctor and Student [17] "It will be somewhat long and peradventure somewhat tedious to show all the causes particularly.

The main use was to leave land, or parts of land to members of the family other than the primary heir. This was a way to avoid primogeniture inheritance, or to ensure it in cases where the estate would be partitioned among heiresses when there is no son to inherit. While the use was intact, the occupant of the land could take advantage of the cestui que use to avoid the feudal payments and duties incidents. Incidents such as wardship, marriage penalties and other gifts, taxes, fines, fees, and knight service were onerous.

This was particularly true of wardship , because most other feudal dues had fallen from practice by the late Middle Ages. Common law did not recognize cestui que uses as such, and there was difficulty fitting these cases into the existing writs and case law.

By the mid-fifteenth century most of the cases at Chancery , which dealt with equity law, involved land use. The incidents could not be enforced against a person who was on a Crusade, or other war, or business adventure. They were not present in the kingdom to be enforced to perform. Since the feudal oath was to the person, and not the land, there could be no lien against the land. A hallmark of medieval feudalism was the person to person oath of allegiance. The feudal incidents could not be enforced upon the beneficiaries of the cestui que use, since these were not the owners of the land.

The users had not sworn an oath to the lord. Therefore, they owed the lord nothing. The cestui que use had no estate.

They had no seisin , nor a trespass , and therefore, ejectment could not be effected. These required possession. Assumpsit was of no avail. In , the Commons had petitioned the king for a remedy against dishonest feoffees to uses, apparently with no result. Cestui que use became a new kind of property and property use.

A change in the laws made feoffees the absolute owners of the property of which they had been enfeoffed, and they became subject to all the liabilities of ownership. They were the only ones who could take proceedings against those who interfered with their ownership. If a trespass had been committed with the license of the cestui que use they could take proceedings against him, for he was at law only a tenant at sufferance.

Similarly, feoffees were the only ones who could take the proceedings against tenants of the land to compel them to perform their obligations. Thomas Cromwell and Audley who succeeded Thomas More vigorously crushed cestui que uses in the courts, persuading judges to declare them illegal or void. Many of these were subsequently sold, converted to private dwellings, given to loyal supporters of the English Reformation , dismantled for building materials, or abandoned and allowed to degenerate into ruins.

Claims of religious corruption were frequently used to justify reclamation by the Crown. Since many of these religious orders provided charity, much of the local medical and social services were left in disarray.

It declared that any holder of a cestui que use became the holder of the legal title of the ownership in fee simple. This voided the advantages of a cestui que use. The feoffee to uses was bypassed. The cestui que use had seisin. The land owner lost the ability to will the land to heirs other than those in direct lineage. There could be no bypassing of heirs with a cestui que. This condition was modified in the Statute of Wills One of the effects of the Statute of Uses in executing the use, was to make a mere sale of land without feoffment the formal public transfer effective to pass the legal estate.

The buyer became the owner by operation of the statute. It necessitated a public announcement of the intended sale to determine if the land had been surreptitiously sold to someone else. The Statute of Uses required a public registry of sale of land, later called the Statute of Enrollments. Lord Hardwicke wrote that the Statute had no real effect other than to add, at most three words, to a conveyance. He was referring to the doctrine that had become settled before his time: that the old use might still be effected despite the Statute, by a "use on a use".

It did not wipe out double ownership, legal and equitable, which has survived into the modern system of trusts. The preamble of the Statute went far in enumerating the abuses the system of uses had brought into play.

The Statute did not, as had previously been suggested, try to remedy these abuses by declaring any uses void. It merely declared that the possession should be transferred to the use and that the cestui que use should have the possession after such manner and form as he had before the use. This case was argued several times in front of several courts in England. It has been described as a judicial scrutiny of "use on a use".

The case is replete with desultory and curious discussion which, in the opinion of Lord Hardwicke , is difficult to understand.

The disposition and policy of the judges was to check contingent uses, which they deemed to be productive of mischiefs and tending to perpetuities. They regarded the Statute of Uses as intending to extirpate uses, which were often found to be subtle and fraudulent contrivances. Their evident object was to restore the simplicity and integrity of the common law.

What the majority judges sought in the case was just what the projectors of the present property reform in England were after, the free alienability of land. The case turned on the doctrine of scintilla juris which Bacon called metaphysics of the worst kind. Scintilla juris Latin: a spark of right , is a legal fiction allowing feoffees to uses to support contingent uses when they come into existence, thereby to enable the Statute of Uses to execute them.

TIREOIDITE DE HASHIMOTO PDF

The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666

However, if there is circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual is deceased on the balance of probabilities , jurisdictions may agree to issue death certificates without any such order. More recently, death certificates for those who perished in the September 11 attacks were issued by the State of New York within days of the tragedy. The same is usually true of soldiers missing after a major battle , especially if the enemy keeps an accurate record of its prisoners of war. If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details including the following: The jurisdiction the individual lived in before death The jurisdiction where they are presumed to have died How the individual is thought to have died murder, suicide, accident , etc. The balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead Most countries have a set period of time seven years in many common law jurisdictions after which an individual is presumed dead if there is no evidence to the contrary.

6ES7 972-0CA23-0XA0 PDF

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

The state London took custody of everybody and their property into a trust. It is like owning a share in the Stock Market, you may own a share… but it is still a share of the Stock. Legally, we are considered to be a fiction, a concept or idea expressed as a name, a symbol. The Crown is an unincorporated association.

FUNDAMENTAL OF MOLECULAR SPECTROSCOPY BANWELL PDF

The state London took custody of everybody and their property into a trust. It is like owning a share in the Stock Market, you may own a share… but it is still a share of the Stock. Legally, we are considered to be a fiction, a concept or idea expressed as a name, a symbol. The Crown is an unincorporated association.

Related Articles