DOCSLIB.ORG

English History, Briefly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
English History, Briefly English History, Briefly 11c. 1066 Norman Conquest: Continuation of pre-Conquest practice, e.g., danegeld, had an A-S accession to the throne, kept writs, tower of London. Start of William the Conqueror’s reign. 1085 Domesday book produced – favourable to Baron’s in confirming title. 1087 Death of William. William II (second son) took throne, Robert (first son) took Norman throne: Beat rebellion by Barons. Sought to exert control over the Church – investiture controversy. 12c. 1100 Death of William II (Hunting accident) Henry I (third son of William I) took throne. Opposed Barons, A-S, Church. Settled a Charter of Liberties at coronation with Barons. Forerunner to MC. Robert tried to invade 1101 but failed. Concordat of London – solved investiture controversy. Homage sworn to Henry I but Bishops had power. 1106 – invaded Normandy. 1120 – crushed Baron’s rebellion. White ship disaster, successor son (to unite Norman and English thrones) died and left only with his daughter Mathilda. Daughter had Henry II by Count of Anjou. 1125 Death of Henry I King Stephen took throne. Anarchy. In 1139, beat Mathilda and her half-brother. Henry II invaded in 1153. They made an agreement that Henry II would succeed him. 1154 Death of Stephen King Henry II took throne: FIRST ANGEVIN KING. Created compilated of laws of Edward the Confessor. When Henry II took the throne, the Kingdom was poor and devastated. He quickly forgave Stephen’s backers, but demolished their castles, reinstated royal finances and justice. Invaded Northumbria, Ireland, supported by the Pope. Had control in Dublin’s vicinity. Increased use of scutage to hire an army and increase royal wealth. The Assize – proclamations of the king, an occasional local court, a jury in one of those, or a novel action for disseisin. Tried by a local jury or 12 and looked at possession, not ownership. 1166, Assize of Clarendon: criminal grand jury’s origin; assize of novel disseisin; local jurors decide a question. 1164, Constitution of Clarendon: to have greater control over the clergy (1/6 of English men). Rowed with Thomas Beckett, who fled to France and returned 6 years later. Henry had his son crowned associated King, and Beckett confronted that, killed. 1176, Assize of Northampton: assize of mort d’ancestor. 1176, Assize of Clarendon: took more control. 1178, specialised the Curia Regis. 1189 Death of Henry II King Richard I took throne: Crusader. Bled the country dry. Justiciar had to run the country. Prince John took de facto power. When Richard reutnred, John fled. Richard then made peace with him, went to France, and never returned. Justiciar instated the eyre – justices going around and sorting issues. Serious crimes were sent to the Royal Court. Finished in 2 months. 1199 Death of Richard I King John took the throne: Lost almost all Angevin land. To recover, raised taxes. Opposed this. He also clashed with the Church and that meant he was excommunicated from the pope. This led to him having to acquiesce to the Pope England as feudal land. Barons, so angered, put MC to him. MC: 63 clauses. Cl 61 – security clause. John sent to the Pope and the Pope declared it void. Baron’s War: 1215-1217. John dies half-way through leaving a 9 year old heir, so the barons do away with their preferred King, Louie, and pick the young Henry. Reissued 1216, no cl 61. 13c. 1216 Death of John King Henry III took the throne: FIRST PLANTEGINATE KING. Boy king. 1227 – of age, but ruled with limited power. In favour of the pope. 1258: coup. Mad Parliament settled the Provisions of Oxford – 3 parliaments a year. 1259: Provisions of Westminster limited mortmain. 1261: repudiated Provisions of Oxford. 1263-7: 2nd Baron’s War 1265: Prince Edward took control of Henry. End of the war: Statute of Marlborough reaffirmed MC. 1272 Death of Henry III King Edward I took throne: Used chancellor to survey the country and identify feudal dues. Increased royal court power and reduced local power. Statute of Glouchester (1278): reinstated General Eyres. Allowed parties to take damages in possessory claims. Allowed quo warranto writs. Changed law of waste. Statute of Westminster II (1285): Add fee tail. Allow new forms where clerks agree should exist and similar to an existing one. Statute of Quo Warranto (1290): a use of power used since 1189 was sufficient for quo warranto. Quia Emptores: ended subinfeudation. Statute of Jewry: no more usury. 1290, all jews expelled. Statutes of Mortmein 1279, 1290. Annexed Wales and invaded Scotland. Confirmatio Cartorum 1297 – reissue of MC with 37 clauses. In force today. In response to borrowing by the King to fight guerrillas in Scotland. 1297 Death of Edward I King Edward II took throne: Coronation in 1308. 1310 – formed a Baronial Committee to reform government – decided 1311 need approval to go to war. Abolished prises, required Parliament to meet every day. Royal revenues to the Exchequer. Married 12 year old 1308, became hostile, sent her to Paris. Took up with Roger Motimor, she invaded England with him. 14c. 1327 Edward II abdicated this year after parliament asked him to. King Edward III took the throne: Controlled by Isabella and Mortimor but had a coup and had Mortimor executed and his mother arrested. Invaded Scotland, France responded, so he started a 100-year war in France. Raised armies and spending. Statute and Parliament in English Legal History Pre-Norman: o c. 600 on, witanagemot, issued laws in doombook. Cf. Normans, unwritten law. o Folcmot, local bodies discussing local issues, evolved into county court. o King governed under advice – Earls advising King. William the Conqueror changed it to Barons. Bracton = “King’s Colleagues”. Norman on: o Letter of William I to Citizens of London – “it is my will that your laws and customs be preserved as they were in King Edward’s day.” Old English and uses English King’s Administrative writ form. o Feudalism – system of homage creates obligations to advise a lord. So, King advised by advisors, curia regis. Normally Barons in Norman + Angevin dynasties but more diverse after. Had the power to direct judges, included statute, and also advise King’s CL. Judges in Chancery and Star Chamber as parts of Curia Regis. Parliament: o Timeline: . First in 1154 – Constitution of Clarendon passed. Higher Clergy met. From 13th century on, Roman law prompted consultation on taxes by burgesses and elected knights. 1254: first summoning of knights to council, to raise taxes. Start of House of Commons? NO – no deliberative role. Maddicott: o Henry III needs money for war in France. So, parliament in 1254. o Writs distributed specified two knights from each county chosen by the county must come. First use of return of elected officials writ. Tenants in chief must come. Failure leads to forfeiture of 20 pounds. o Maddicott points to two knights who refused to go to the parliament. Suggests that there was distaste about being called to raise taxes. Original choices were all judges, had military service, never were sheriffs, and were very local. Some diversity of people before parliament being from such disparate places. Most involved in grand assize, and so shared an understanding of government. 1258: “Mad Parliament” – all Baron, no shire, led to Baron’s war. When a parliament was later called with citizens, barons, knights and burgesses, that is probably the more plausible candidate for the first parliament. Use of special writ to invite recipient to discuss kingdom’s business – King to do, and King to pick where. Lords receive personal writs. Sheriffs elect persons and direct to go. 1275: 1st general parliament – representatives. 1291: to obtain confirmation cartorum viz. taxes. 1307: first without tax in issue. 1341: practice of knights, citizens and burgesses deliberating separate to nobility and reporting to the king. 1440: called House of Commons. 1836: electoral qualifications fixed – must be 40 shilling freeholder. o Towns rarely had parliamentary members. o Parliamentary petition: . King could use prerogative on petition when parliament was called, a way of attempting to get people to out corrupt officials. By 1280, so popular sorted into different bundles. Minor matter issued a letters patent, major, statute. Increased power of house of commons – 1337, commons first petitioned King on a matter. Distinct to modern parliament as just a petition. 14th century – started to demand petitions in exchange for a tax. Mid-13th century, standard. 16th century – started to just attach a bill. Power of the King: o Issue orders to all on advice of great men, or to a group. o HENRY II – where custom unclear, and assize can declare, need a proclamation of king with assent of great men. o STATUTE OF MERTON 1236 – confirms King’s prerogative. o Prerogative: . Tudors – parliaments less frequent; prerogative used more. 17th century was when the Stuarts began to test the prerogative. Prerogative – can’t be widened, power, but can be cut down by convention. King can decline assent to legislation up until Stuarts. Last veto, 1708, Queen Anne vetoing law arming Scottish militia to stop Jacobite revolution. o Magna Carta 1215: . Limitation by Lords of King – but reneged. Note security clause (cl 61) – Barons get to elect 25 to keep and cause to be observed the peace and liberties promised. A breach by the King, known to 4 of those men, gives a right to redress. A failure means the 4 refer to 25, and then they can seize all but King, Queen and children to have issues resolved. Distrainment by Barons led to the First Barons’ War – and so the death of King John led to Henry III, nine years old, taking the throne.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Magna Carta and the Development of the Common Law
    Magna Carta and the Development of the Common Law Professor Paul Brand, FBA Emeritus Fellow All Souls College, Oxford Paper related to a presentation given for the High Court Public Lecture series, at the High Court of Australia, Canberra, Courtroom 1, 13 May 2015 Magna Carta and the Development of the Common Law I We are about to commemorate the eight hundredth anniversary of the granting by King John on 15 June 1215 of a ‘charter of liberties’ in favour of all the free men of his kingdom [of England] and their heirs. That charter was not initially called Magna Carta (or ‘the Great Charter’, in English). It only acquired that name after it had been revised and reissued twice and after the second reissue had been accompanied by the issuing of a separate, but related, Charter of the Forest. The revised version of 1217 was called ‘The Great Charter’ simply to distinguish it from the shorter, and therefore smaller, Forest Charter, but the name stuck. To call it a ‘charter of liberties’ granted by king John to ‘all the free men of his kingdom’ of England is, however, in certain respects misleading. The term ‘liberty’ or ‘liberties’, particularly in the context of a royal grant, did not in 1215 bear the modern meaning of a recognised human right or human rights. ‘Liberty’ in the singular could mean something closer to that, in the general sense of the ‘freedom’ or the ‘free status’ of a free man, as opposed to the ‘unfreedom’ of a villein. ‘Liberties’, though, were something different (otherwise known as ‘franchises’), generally specific privileges granted by the king, particular rights such as the right to hold a fair or a market or a particular kind of private court, the right to have a park or a rabbit warren which excluded others from hunting or an exemption such as freedom from tolls at markets or fairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on Manors & Manorial History
    SOME NOTES ON MANORS & MANORIAL HISTORY BY A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A.. D.Litt.. F.B.A..F.S.A. Some Notes on Manors & Manorial History By A. Hamilton Thompson, M.A., D.Litt., F.B.A., F.S.A. The popular idea of a manor assumes that it is a fixed geo­ graphical area with definite boundaries, which belongs to a lord with certain rights over his tenants. In common usage, we speak of this or that lordship, almost in the same way in which we refer to a parish. It is very difficult, however, to give the word an exclusively geographical meaning. If we examine one of those documents which are known as Inquisitions post mortem, for example, we shall find that, at the death of a tenant who holds his property directly from the Crown, the king's escheator will make an extent, that is, a detailed valuation, of his manors. This will consist for the most part of a list of a number of holdings with names of the tenants, specifying the rent or other services due to the lord from each. These holdings will, it is true, be generally gathered together in one or more vills or townships, of which the manor may roughly be said to consist. But it will often be found that there are outlying holdings in other vills which owe service to a manor, the nucleus of which is at some distance. Thus the members of the manor of Rothley lay scattered at various distances from their centre, divided from it and from each other by other lordships.
    [Show full text]
  • To Download Magna Carta FAQ Answers .PDF
    Magna Carta FAQ: Answers Produced with the support of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) Answers provided by: Professor Nigel Saul Magna Carta FAQ: Answers Q1) WHAT’S MAGNA CARTA DONE FOR ME? Quite simple - it’s because of Magna Carta that we well whatever he liked – and did. After the making of the live in a free country today. Magna Carta affirmed the Charter he was subject to the law like everyone else. In vital principle of freedom under the law. Clause 39 of the mid thirteenth century the lawyer Henry Bracton was the Charter said: ‘no free man shall be imprisoned or to write, ‘in England the king is below God and below the deprived of his lands except by judgement of his peers or law’. by the law of the land’. Clause 40 said: ‘To no one shall we sell, delay or deny right or justice’. Before the making of Magna Carta the king had been able to do pretty Q2) HOW MUCH OF MAGNA CARTA IS STILL ON THE STATUTE BOOK? Very little, in fact. To be precise, just four clauses of the matters? Most definitely not. All great documents are the original 1215 version of the Charter. These are: clause product of specific historical circumstances and lose their 1, guaranteeing the liberties of the Church; clause 13, immediate relevance over time. But that does not mean guaranteeing the liberties of the City of London; and that they can be forgotten or consigned to the historical the famous clauses 39 and 40, guaranteeing due legal waste paper bin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lincoln Charter of the Forest Conference
    LINCOLN RECORD SOCIETY Bishop Grosseteste University, Woodland Trust, American Bar Association THE LINCOLN CHARTER OF THE FOREST CONFERENCE 22-24 September 2017 THE CHARTER OF THE FOREST: EVOLVING HUMAN RIGHTS IN NATURE Nicholas A. Robinson University Professor for the Environment Kerlin Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law Emeritus Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, New York © Nicholas A. Robinson 3 September 2017– Author’s moral rights asserted. This conference is a singular event, long over due. It has been 258 years since William Blackstone celebrated “these two sacred charters,”1 Carta de Foresta and Magna Carta, with his celebrated publication of their authentic texts. In 2015, the Great Charter of Liberties enjoyed scholarly, political and popular focus. The companion Forest Charter was and is too much neglected.2 I salute the American Bar Association, and Dan Magraw, for the ABA’s educational focus of the Forest Charter, as well as Magna Carta. Today we restore some balance with this conference’s searching and insightful examination of the Forest Charter’s significance. I congratulate The Lincoln Record Society and thank the conference organizers. I am honored to be addressing you, although I must confess to being akin to Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.3 As an American, I cannot claim the “liberties of the forest” that were ceded to the English. Nor am I a medievalist, but only a student of medieval historians, such as G.J. Turner, whose Select Pleas of the Forest4 inspired my own comparative law studies of Forest Law and the Charter of 1217, and also Professors J.C.
    [Show full text]
  • STATUTE QUIA EMPTORES (1290) Statutes of the Realm, Vol
    STATUTE QUIA EMPTORES (1290) Statutes of the Realm, vol. I, p . I 06. Whereas the buyers of lands and tenements belonging to the fees of great men and other [lords] have in times past often entered [those] fees to [the lords'] prejudice, because tenants holding freely of those great men and other [lords] have sold their lands and tenements [to those buyers] to hold in fee to [the buyers] and their heirs of their feoffors and not of the chief lords of the fees, with the result that the same chief lords have often lost the escheats, marriages and wardships of lands and tenements belonging to their fees; and this has seemed to the same great men and other lords [not only] very bard and burdensome [but also] in such a case to their manifest disinheritance: The lord king in his parliament at Westminster after Easter in 10 Tenure: services and incidents the eighteenth. year of his reign, namely a fortnight after the feast of St John the Baptist, at the instance of the great men of his realm, has granted, provided and laid down that from henceforth it shall be lawful for any free man at his own pleasure to sell his lands or tenements or [any] part of them; provided however that the feoffee shall hold those lands or tenements of the same chief lord and by the same services and customary dues as his feoffor previously held them. And if he sells to another any part of his same lands or tenements, the feoffee shall hold that [part] directly of the chief lord and shall immediately be burdened with such amount of service as belongs or ought to belong to the same lord for that part according to the amount of the land or tenement [that has been] sold; and so in this case that part of the service falls to the chief lord to be taken by the hand of the [feoffee], so that the feoffee ought to look and answer to the same chief lord for that part of the service owed as [is proportional to] the amount of the land or tenement sold.
    [Show full text]
  • CREATING an AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY and ITS LIMITS in AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest
    CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest Contact Information: Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 503-4470 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements: ∗Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A., J.D., Ph.D. Yale University. I would like to thank James McMasters of Northwestern’s Law Library for his help in finding copies of many of the primary sources used to write this Article. For extremely valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Bernard Bailyn, Stuart Banner, Kenworthey Bilz, Charlotte Crane, David Dana, Michele Landis Dauber, Christine Desan, Tony A. Freyer, Morton J. Horwitz, Daniel Hulsebosch, Stanley N. Katz, Daniel M. Klerman, Naomi Lamoreaux, Charles W. McCurdy, Edmund S. Morgan, Janice Nadler, Sarah Pearsall, Dylan Penningroth, George L. Priest, Richard J. Ross, Emma Rothschild, Dhananjai Shivakumar, Kenneth L. Sokoloff, Vicky Saker Woeste, Gavin Wright and the seminar participants at Northwestern University School of Law’s Faculty Workshop, Stanford Law School’s Faculty Workshop, UCLA’s Legal History Colloquium and Economic History Workshop, NYU’s Legal History Colloquium, the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Chicago Legal History Seminar, the American Society for Legal History’s Annual Meeting, the University of Illinois College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Omohundro Institute of Early American History’s Annual Conference, and Harvard University’s Conference on Atlantic Legalities. The Julius Rosenthal Fund at Northwestern University School of Law provided generous research support. CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY This Article analyzes an issue central to the economic and political development of the early United States: laws protecting real property from the claims of creditors.
    [Show full text]
  • Speedy Trial
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 68 Article 7 Issue 4 December Winter 1977 Speedy Trial Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Speedy Trial, 68 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 543 (1977) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 68, No. 4 Copyright @ 1977 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. SPEEDY TRIAL United States v. Lovasco, 97 S. Ct. 2044 (1977). The Supreme Court of the United States has v. Marion,7 the Supreme Court focused on the recognized that the right to a speedy trial "is language of the sixth amendment8 and con- one of the most basic rights preserved by our cluded that the sixth amendment speedy trial Constitution."' The right, as encompassed by provision does not apply until an individual the sixth amendment to the United States Con- becomes an accused, that is either through stitution,2 can be traced to the Magna Carta of arrest or indictment. The Court also stated 1215,3 which states, "we will sell to no man, we that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal will not deny or defer to any man either justice Procedure9 is limited in application to post- or right.
    [Show full text]
  • Novel Disseisin5 Was Instituted As a Possessory Protection of Freehold Property Rights
    IV–42 THE AGE OF PROPERTY: THE ASSIZES OF HENRY II SEC. 4 75. ?1236. “The fees of those who hold of the lord king in chief within the liberty of St. Edmunds to whom the lord king does not write.... Hugh de Polstead holds two fees and two parts of a fee in Polstead of the honour of Rayleigh [Essex].” The Book of Fees 1:600. (This document is probably connected with what is variously called an ‘aid’ or a ‘scutage’ which was levied on the occasion of the marriage of Isabella, Henry III’s sister, to the Emperor Frederick II in July of 1235. The lord of the honour of Rayleigh was Hubert de Burgh, Henry III’s justiciar, from 1215 until his downfall in 1232. The honour was in an ambiguous status in 1236; from 1237 it was in the king’s hands, as it was from 1163 to 1215. Sanders, English Baronies 139.) 76. 1242 X 1243. Surrey. “Of the honour of William de Windsor. Hugh de Polstead holds a half a knights fee in Compton of the same honour.” Id. 2 (1923) 685. (This is a document connected with the great scutage raised in connection with Henry III’s expedition to Gascony in 1242. The honour of William de Windsor was one-half of the honour of Eton [Bucks]. His father, also William, and his father’s cousin Walter had divided the honour in 1198 after fifteen years in which the inheritance had been disputed. Walter’s portion passed to his sisters Christiana and Gunnor in 1203, the latter of whom was married to ?Hugh I de Hosdeny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pershore Flores Historiarum: an Unrecognised Chronicle from the Period of Reform and Rebellion in England, 1258–65*
    English Historical Review Vol. CXXVII No. 529 doi:10.1093/ehr/ces311 © The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. The Pershore Flores Historiarum: An Unrecognised Chronicle from the Period of Reform and Rebellion in England, 1258–65* Historians of the period of reform and rebellion in England between 1258 and 1265 make extensive use of a chronicle called the Flores Historiarum.1 This is not surprising, because the Flores covers the revolution of 1258, the baronial regime of 1258–60, the king’s recovery of power in 1261, the civil war of 1263, the battle of Lewes in 1264, and the rule of Simon de Montfort down to his defeat and death at the battle of Evesham in 1265. In the earliest surviving text of the Flores, Downloaded from which belongs to Chetham’s Library in Manchester, the account of these revolutionary years is part of a longer section of the chronicle which begins in the year 1249. From that point, until the battle of Evesham in 1265, the text is unified, and distinguished from what comes before and after, by the way in which capital letters at the beginning of sections are http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ decorated and, in particular, by the decoration given to the letter ‘A’ in the ‘Anno’ at the beginning of each year.2 The text is also unified, and set apart, by being written, save for a short section at the start, in the same thirteenth-century hand and having very much the appearance of a fair copy.3 Historians who have studied the chronicle have nearly all assumed that this part of the Flores was copied at St Albans Abbey from 4 the work of Matthew Paris and his continuator.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutes As Judgments: the Natural Law Theory of Parliamentary Activity in Medieval England*
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1977 Statutes as Judgments: The aN tural Law Theory of Parliamentary Activity in Medieval England Morris S. Arnold Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Legal History Commons, and the Natural Law Commons Recommended Citation Arnold, Morris S., "Statutes as Judgments: The aN tural Law Theory of Parliamentary Activity in Medieval England" (1977). Articles by Maurer Faculty. Paper 1136. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1136 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1977] STATUTES AS JUDGMENTS: THE NATURAL LAW THEORY OF PARLIAMENTARY ACTIVITY IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND* MORRIS S. ARNOLD t The proposition that late medieval English lawgivers believed themselves to be exercising a declarative function has been so fre- quently put forward and so widely accepted that it is in danger of being canonized by sheer dint of repetition; 1 and thus one who would deny the essential validity of that notion bears the virtually insuperable burden of proof commonly accorded an accused heretic. Nevertheless, it will be argued here that natural law notions are attributed to the medieval English legislator with only the slightest support from the sources, and after only the most rudimentary and uncritical analyses of the implications of such an idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Interests in Property in Minnesota Everett Rf Aser
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1919 Future Interests in Property in Minnesota Everett rF aser Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fraser, Everett, "Future Interests in Property in Minnesota" (1919). Minnesota Law Review. 1283. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1283 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY IN MINNESOTA "ORIGINALLY the creation of future interests at law was greatly restricted, but now, either by the Statutes of Uses and of Wills, or by modern legislation, or by the gradual action of the courts, all restraints on the creation of future interests, except those arising from remoteness, have been done away. This practically reduces the law restricting the creation of future interests to the Rule against Perpetuities,"' Generally in common law jurisdictions today there is but one rule restricting the crea- tion of future interests, and that rule is uniform in its application to real property and to personal property, to legal and equitable interests therein, to interests created by way of trust, and to powers. In 1830 the New York Revised Statutes went into effect in New York state. The revision had been prepared by a commis- sion appointed for the purpose five years before. It contained a code of property law in which "the revisers undertook to re- write the whole law of future estates in land, uses and trusts ..
    [Show full text]
  • Wnifieb ({Olorabo ({Ommon Jlahl(@Ranb Jjur»: P.O
    Wnifieb ({olorabo ({ommon JLahl(@ranb jJur»: p.o. Box 11724 Denver, Colorado 80211 WRIT OF ~UO WARRANTO 5 SERVED VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE To: United States Supreme Court Judges and all Federal District Judges: FILED VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE IN: US Supreme Court & All United States District Courts 10 "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ... 1JJ 15 • Official proceeding 18 USC§1512 • Clerk is to file. 18 USC§2076 • Felony to conceal or remove 18 use §2071 v_~ ,,;=.._.. Bar controlled federal and state court judges, by their presumed authority, contrary to their oath and duty fraudulently claim the Constitution for the United States and its cap-stone Bill of Rights 20 abolished by traitorous bar controlled legislators, acts of conspiracy, treason and war against the United States. We the lleople 1!lecree by ~uo Warranto all said unconstitutional legislation null and void and declare all such subversives enemies of the Peoples of the United States of America and order all United States Marshals, Bailiffs, County Sheriffs and Deputies to arrest all such federal and state 25 judges for conspiracy, treason and breach of the peace when witnessing the violation of Peoples' unalienable rights from the bench, in violation of Article III Section 3 for levying war against the people, adhering to the enemy, giving aid and comfort. 2 18 U.S. Code §2385 WHOEVER ORGANIZES OR HELPS OR ATIEMPTS TO ORGANIZE ANY SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS WHO TEACH, ADVOCATE, OR ENCOURAGE THE OVERTHROW OR DESTRUCTION 30 OF ANY SUCH GOVERNMENT3 BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE; OR BECOMES OR IS A MEMBER OF, OR AFFILIATES WITH, ANY SUCH SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS [BAR], KNOWING THE PURPOSES THEREOF- SHALL BE FINED UNDER THIS TITLE OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, OR BOTH ..
    [Show full text]