This is a short sample from our History of English Law Notes collection which contains 134 pages of notes in total. If you find this useful you might like to consider purchasing our History of English Law Notes.
|Pages In Full Document||3|
|Original Document File Type:||Word (Docx) (Conversion to PDF is available post purchase if required)|
|Price:||Part of a package History of English Law Notes containing 25 other documents which retails for £24.99.|
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Seisin RevisionThe following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our History of English Law Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
'Seisin' and 'the right'
'Seisin': Definition contested. No definitive answer. Must see what best fits surviving evidence. More or less resembles Roman possession - a factual relation with a corporeal thing.
+ Williams (1910): 'To be seised of a thing is to be possessed thereof, the word seisin meaning possession'.
'Right': More or less a claim to ownership. In the developed common law 'the right' (the claim to the right - writ of entry) resembled Roman dominium, the ultimate legal title above which there is no other (though in contrast to dominium 'the right' was always relative). It was a relationship between a person and a thing.
Debate: But did 'seisin' and 'the right' always mean these things?
+ Maitland: Yes. Thought (late 19th c) they did not change definition. Felt that from beginning (once land could be subinfeudated) Ts had a right in rem, and Ls had a proprietary right to services and a future right of enjoyment of the land if the tenancy terminates. So Maitland said there was a concept very like ownership from early on as Ts could exercise their right against their lord and third parties. Says seisin is possession - 'cardinal' in our law.
In Maitland's view, if his seisin was challenged by a 3rd party, D would be asserting a horizontal, abstract entitlement. L is only relevant as the dispute may end up in his court. This is about abstract ownership.
+ Milsom: No. Seisin, he argues, began not as a relationship between a person and a thing (it was not a possessory relationship between a person and their land), but as a relationship between two persons about a thing - a relationship between the lord and T about the land. Essentially it was just a contractual relationship which did not relate to the outside world. If the relationship broke down T could do nothing in relation to the land. The was a different understanding of T's right to property. Argues that it is only when the common law intervened and created the real actions that T had an enforceable right in rem.
One had to say 'I am seised of Blackacre by X'. The lord seises the T of the land, so seisin is a contractual relationship between lord and T - lord accepts the tenant. He argues seisin cannot exist in the abstract; it requires a lord who can confirm it. The lord accepts T as tenant of the land and T homages.
A claim 'to the right' would not be a claim to ownership; it would be a claim against the lord that the lord is obliged to seise the tenant of Blackacre. It is to claim the benefit of obligation binding the lord.
Milsom's view is vertical. D is claiming the benefit of an obligation by the lord - the lord must recognise me, D, not T, as your tenant. T will make an opposing claim upwards (vertically) against L. Both are claiming the lord should accept them as the tenant. 'Tenure is the crux'; the lord is intimately involved and not merely somebody with jurisdiction over land disputes. Double booked theatre ticket is Milsom's analogy; same tickets, there has been a mistake, same seats sold twice. Each make a claim against the manager (L).
Controversy: Milsom thought Maitland was thinking in horizontal terms because he had been reading the treaties in Bracton, which were familiar with Roman concepts, thereby assuming the abstract concepts of ownership and possession could be applicable to the common law in the century after the Conquest. Milsom argues this view is too advanced and
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes and essays alongside much more in our History of English Law Notes.