Book 2 (out of 4) of Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, by Sir William Blackstone, is about the rights of things.

DISCLAIMER: I didn’t proofread this blog post at all. There was so much material to get through and even my arbitrary synopsis has way too much material for me to want to proofread. There may be some grammatical mistakes, as well as awkward phrasings when I combine the writing style and old English language of Blackstone with my own writing style and modern English. This blog post is meant to be more of a notepad summary for my own reference, as well as a proof-of-work and reference to the general concept, rather than a rigorous summary.

Link:

Book 2 (and 1) link

Let’s get straight to it.

Table of contents:

Of property in general
Of real property; and first, of corporeal hereditaments
Of incorporeal hereditaments
Of the feodal system
Of the ancient English tenures
Of the modern English tenures
Of freehold estates of inheritance
Of freeholds, not of inheritance
Of estates less than freehold
Of estates upon condition
Estates in possession, remainder, and reversion
Of estates in severalty, joint-tenancy, coparcenary, and common
Of the title to things real, in general
Of title by descent
Of title by purchase and 1. By escheat
Of title by occupancy
Of title by prescription
Of title by forfeiture
Of title by alienation
Of alienation by deed
Of alienation by matter of record
Of alienation by special custom
Of alienation by devise
Of things personal
Of property in things personal
Of title to things personal by occupancy
Of title by prerogative and forfeiture
Of title by custom
Of title by succession, marriage, and judgement
Of title by gift, grant, and contract
Of title by bankruptcy
Of title by testament, and administration

Ch 1: Of property in general (Pg 304)

This is a fantastic foundational chapter and talks about the origins of property, and the right to it. Blackstone gives a great sequential and reasonable buildup to the property rights of today.

Property is the right to have sole exclusive rights to use anything, while at the same time no one else can use it.

Blackstone starts off by saying the right of humans to have property begins from the great Creator, as specified in the holy writ.

But practically speaking, the concept of property begins by the law of nature and reason, where so long as someone is using something, he has a transient right to property. For example, no one owned the ground, but if someone was sitting in a spot of it, for shade, then he acquired a sort of ownership of it, and it would be unjust, and contrary to the law of nature, to drive him from it by force. But the instance that he ceased to use it, it would be fair for someone else to use it and assume transient ownership of it.

However, as mankind increased in number, craft, and ambition, it became necessary to allow for property of a more permanent nature, to avoid the chaos a situation where many people are always competing for property which has ceased to be transiently owned. For example, as humans grew more civilized, they invented various kinds of conveniences to help them live, such as shelter or clothes. But man wouldn’t labor to create these if, the moment he walked out of his tent, or took off his shirt, someone else could use and claim them. For shelter specifically, even lesser animals, such as birds or wolves, maintain a permanent property of their homes (ex: nests or caves), the trespassing of which is deemed a flagrant injustice, and would sacrifice their lives to protect them. And so man developed permanent property in his shelter. In the past they often used movable shelters (like tents) and so ownership of these came before ownership of land. And ownership of movables was also reasonable because they took bodily labour to create, and bodily labour is the most reasonable justification to property.

The need for food also quickly led to a kind of property. As it was more consistent to yield food, people quickly came to be able to own herds of tamed animals. Additionally, wells were important to provide water to these herds. Those who dug the wells were justified to own it.

Before agriculture, the land was common, and when men and cattle had ate all the food in a certain area of land, it was deemed a natural right to go to another area of land and use it. Upon the same principle was founded the right to migration.

As humans populated more of the land, it become difficult to find new spots to inhabit, without encroaching upon former occupants. Additionally, people would quickly consume all the food that was growing in a certain area of land. Thus it became necessary to practice agriculture, which necessitated a more permanent form of owning land. This was because there would be no reason for someone to farm on land if anyone else could just come and claim and seize it.

Property, once acquired by the first taker, which taking amounts to a declaration that he intends to appropriate that thing for his own use, remains with the taker, until he does some act that shows intention to abandon it. So if someone casts some jewel into the sea, then he no longer owns it, as he has showed intention of no longer using it, and the first subsequent taker will own it. But if someone hides something, and it is found by another, then the original owner still has claim to it, as he showed the intention of using it again. Additionally, if someone drops or loses something by accident, then he has a claim to it even if someone else finds it first, since he lost it by accident, rather than intentionally casting it away from him.

But, this method of someone losing his property, and another seizing the vacant possession, is well founded in natural law, but could not last for long. This is because when someone wants to get rid of something, there is usually someone else who would want that thing, and then they could trade for it. Thus was introduced the reciprocal transfer of property by sale, grant, or conveyance. Another way of looking at it is when I intend to give something to someone else, they are the first person to know of my desire to part with it, and thus step in and seize the vacant possession.

When a man dies, he unarguably can no longer own property. However, it would be chaos if upon death, anyone could come and claim the property. Thus it is important to establish a way of deciding who gets property upon the death of the owner. He can leave a will, or the municipal law will decide a inheritor.

The right of inheritance, or passing on property to children, is something that has been around forever. However, since the right to permanent property is a civil, rather than a natural right, the right of inheritance, which is based off of the right to permanent property, is also a civil, rather than a natural right. One way of thinking about it is that a man’s children are usually around at his deathbed, and thus are the first to know he has passed, and can also be the first to claim his now-unowned property.

There are some things which still remain common property, such as light, air, and water, and also untameable animals.

There are also things where an owner might exist, but often doesn’t, such as a shipwreck, forests, and wild animals to be hunted (game). The ownership of these is vested in the crown of England.

Ch 2: Of real property; and first, of corporeal hereditaments (Pg 313)

The objects of property are things, as opposed to persons. Things can be divided into:

things real, which cannot be moved, such as land
things personal, which can be moved, such as clothes or money

Things real consist of:

land, which covers all things of a permanent nature
tenement, technically a superset of land, but generally applied to houses and other buildings
hereditament, the superset of the previous two, including not only land and tenements but anything that may be inherited, be it corporeal or incorporeal

Hereditaments are divided into two parts:

corporeal, which affect the senses
incorporeal, which are not the object of sensation, and exist only in contemplation

Corporeal hereditaments consist solely of substantial and permanent objects, which are land, and any structure upon it.

Ch 3: Of incorporeal hereditaments (Pg 315)

An incorporeal hereditament is a right issuing out of a thing corporate. Not the thing corporate (such as land) or the thing received from the hereditament (money from rent) but the abstraction itself (rent).

Incorporeal hereditament are of ten sorts: advowsons, tithes, commons, ways, offices, dignities, franchises, corodies or pensions, annuities, and rents.

Advowson: The right to recommend someone for some church position

Tithe: A tax upon lands of the profit, the stock, and the personal industry of its inhabitants

Common: A privilege which a man has in someone else’s land

Way: A right of going over another man’s ground

Office: A job

Franchise: A royal privilege, or a branch of the King’s prerogative, subsisting in the hand of a subject

Corody: A right of sustenance, or to receive provision for one’s maintenance. In lieu of which, money may be provided instead.

Annuity: Same as corody, except these arise from temporal, whereas the previous from spiritual, persons

Ch 4: Of the feodal system (Pg 329)

The feodal system really helps to understand what a possible justification for a real estate tax might be.

When an army conquered a new land, officers were able to recursively distribute the lands among their subordinates, in exchange for an oath of fealty. As review, an oath of fealty consists of, or includes, an obligation of the tenant to protect the lands of the lord. These allotments of lands were called feuds, fiefs, or fees. If the oath of fealty were broken, then the land would be returned to the grantor.

At the top of this distribution tree sits the crown. And so this entire recursive system of oaths of fealty is called the feodal system. It creates a military power which is ready to defend the entire land.

Blackstone says that England almost certainly did not originate from a feodal system, yet in the history of England, England was persuaded or compelled to switch to a feodal system for military security purposes, or by cunning businessmen.

Obviously, instead of the actual service of fealty, a tenant can simply send some money instead, which is how we could justify some kind of real estate tax.

Ch 5: Of the ancient English tenures (Pg 338)

If the thing holden is a tenement, then the person holding it is a tenant, and the manner in which it is held is a tenure.

Tenures are products of, or remnants of, feodal policy.

There are two categorizations of services which a tenant must do for his lord:

Free or base services. Free services are those which are not unreasonable for a soldier or freeman to do, while base services are only fit of those of a servile rank, such as plowing land
Certain or uncertain services. Certain service have a regular time upon which they must be done, whereas uncertain services do not

Now, based on these kinds of services, there are four kinds of lay tenures:

Tenements can be divided into frank-tenement and villenage
Of frank-tenements, some are held freely in consideration of homage and knight-service, while others are held with the service of fealty only
Of villenages, some are pure, and some are privileged. Pure villenages are where the tenant must do whatever his lord commands, including any uncertain service. The other is called villein-socage, where the tenant does villein services, but only certain and determined ones

So, the four types of tenures:

Services free and uncertain (chivalry)
Services free and certain
Services base and uncertain
Services base and certain

Type 1: knight-service, or chivalry

This is the most honorable one. The service is free and uncertain (ex: military service with homage). 40 days of military service for a knight’s fee, which was the necessary amount of land to have a knight-service tenure.

It also had these seven fruits and consequences:

Aids, which were normally discretionary benevolences granted by the tenant to the lord. But these came in time to be obligations. They are to ransom the lord, ensure the lord’s eldest son becomes a knight, and ensure the lord’s eldest daughter gets married. But eventually there were more aids added, such as aids to pay the lord’s debts, or aids for the lord to pay aids to his lord (skip-lord). But eventually the aids came to be fixed at 5%.
Relief is a one-time payment when the tenant first entered into tenure
Primer seisin is basically like a relief of land that is given to a tenant directly from the King, when the tenement is passed from a tenant to a tenant’s heir. The idea is that once the tenant dies, the King gets the tenement, but then grants it back to the heir, so deserves something for it. The King will take half a year, or a full year, of profit from the land
Primer seisin is only applicable if the heir is 21 if male, or 16 if female (female can marry and let her older husband perform the tenure service). If the heir is too young, the King gets wardship of the tenement, as well as the heir. The whole idea is that the King is supposed to get a service in exchange for the tenure, and so will bring up the heir, till they can provide that service. And while the King isn’t getting a service, he will get to keep the land.
In wardship, lord also gets to marry off the heir, especially a girl, and pocket any proceeds from the marriage. The justification is that the lord had to provide their consent for the heir to be married
Tenants also had to pay fines for every alienation, which is a sale of property. The justification is that as part of the original tenure, the lord and tenant had an agreement of tenements for service. And so the tenant needed the lord’s approval to do an alienation. In England, this fine only happened for tenementns directly from the King
Escheat is the return of the tenement to the lord if the tenant dies without a heir, or commits some treason or felony

These are all the conditions of this kind of tenure. But what ended up happening is that knights eventually started sending doubles and then making a pecuniary satisfaction instead of serving the 40 days of military service because it was so troublesome. But as this happened, all the benefits of the feodal service decayed (having a military power that could protect lands) and only the hardships remained. And all these extensive conditions I listed above were taking a toll on people and basically taking their entire existence away (like taxes do in America today). Eventually there was a statute introduced that abolished all these military tenures.

There are also similar tenures where the service is not to serve in the military for 40 days but other various acts such as holding the King’s banner.

Ch 6: Of the modern English tenures (Pg 349)

The modern English tenures consist almost solely of services free and certain (free-socage). Basically, no base tasks, and certain conditions (as opposed to uncertain military conditions). Free-socage is considered a more noble tenure than the following one I describe.

There is one more category of tenure which is villenage, which includes base services. People in this kind of tenure used to be essentially slaves, but over time, through the customs, these have been converted to copyholds, where the tenants still have to perform various services (or pay some rents) but they can’t necessarily be totally owned or ousted at the lord’s will.

There is also spiritual tenure, typically given to church-related organizations.

Overall this is an interesting chapter. I’m not going to recite all the details of it but essentially it dives into the different types of tenures, what rights or services tenants had or had to perform, and through the categorization of all these different types of tenures, creates a bird-eye view as to how tenures work (rather than simply accepting tenures for how they are and reacting to the world).

Ch 7: Of freehold estates of inheritance (Pg 364)

Estates have three dimensions:

the quantity of interest the tenant has in the tenement
the time at which that quantity of interest is to be enjoyed
the number and connections of tenants

Estates can be divided into freeholds, and less-than-freeholds.

Estates of freehold can be divided into estates of inheritance, or estates not of inheritance.

Estates of inheritance can be further divided into inheritances absolute or fee-simple, and inheritances limited.

Estates-tail, or fee-tail is when there are some conditions attached to what would normally be a fee-simple estate.

Ch 8: Of freeholds, not of inheritance (Pg 374)

Lot of stuff about dowers in this chapter.

Ch 9: Of estates less than freehold (Pg 385)

estates for years (rent)
estate by will (the lord’s whim). Copyholds kind of fall into this category
tenancy by sufferance

Ch 10: Of estates upon condition (Pg 392)

Estates upon condition are of two sorts:

estates upon condition implied
estates upon condition expressed

The second sort includes the following kinds of estates:

estates held in vadio, gage, or pledge
estates by statute merchant, or statute staple
estates held by elegit

Ch 11: Estates in possession, remainder, and reversion (Pg 399)

This chapter covers much “nicety”, to use one of the words in the chapter. I’m not sure how useful it would be to understand all the niceties… I’m sure I could come back and understand it properly if need be.

Anyways:

Estates in possession are the normal kinds of estates we talked about so far
Estates in remainder are pieces of a prior estate that come later sequentially, after some condition
Estates in reversion are when someone has granted out lands to some lessee, but the estate will vest back in the grantor on some condition. This comes from the feodal system apparently

Ch 12: Of estates in severalty, joint-tenancy, coparcenary, and common (Pg 408)

An estate in severalty is held by a single person. This is the default estate, when speaking about estates. The interesting ones are the other ones, which always have multiple tenants.

Joint-tenancy is where lands or tenements are granted to two or more persons.

Coparcenary is where lands of inheritance descend from the ancestor to two or more persons.

Tenancy in common is where lands are held by several and different titles, but with unity of possession.

Ch 13: Of the title to things real, in general (Pg 417)

Another interesting high-level chapter.

There are several stages of requisite to form a complete title to lands and tenements:

The lowest degree of title consists in the mere naked possession, or actual occupation, of the estate, without any apparent right, to continue and hold such possession
The next step is the right of possession, which may reside in one man, while the actual possession resides in another. The man with the right of possession may exercise his right at any time. There are also two kinds of this possession - apparent right of possession, and actual right of possession. An apparent right of possession may be overcome by proving a better right of possession, but an actual right of possession will stand the test against any opponent.
The next step is the right of property, which is independent of possession and even the right of possession. The lines start to become a little fuzzy here, but basically, a person in this situation may technically have the right to something, but through his own negligence, the act of his ancestor, or the decision of some court, someone else has the right to possession.
The last step is the complete title to lands and hereditaments. In this step is joined the right of possession with the right of property.

Ch 14: Of title by descent (Pg 420)

Whenever, by one method, a man gains an estate, another loses it. For example, when an heir acquires an estate in the form of inheritance, someone loses the inheritance by death.

The methods of acquiring an estate can be reduced to two categories: by descent, and by purchase.

This chapter doesn’t talk about niche customs or statutory laws of descent, but only of common law.

There is lineal (direct descendant of each other) and collateral (same ancestor, but not direct descendants of each other) consanguinity.

Here are some rules of inheritance:

Inheritances shall lineally descend but not ascend
The male issue shall be admitted before female
Where there are two or more males, the eldest only shall inherit, but females equally
The direct (one-degree) lineal descendants shall represent their deceased ancestor
On failure of lineal descendants, the inheritance shall descend to collateral relations of the first purchaser
The collateral heir of the person last seised must be his next collateral kinsman of the whole blood
The seventh and last rule or canon is, that in collateral inheritances the male stocks shall be preferred to the female

Ch 15: Of title by purchase and 1. By escheat (Pg 444)

Purchase means any form of acquisition of lands and tenements excluding descent. Colloquially it refers to a sale, but from a rigorous standpoint, it includes other things such as gifting an estate.

Escheat is when the chain of inheritance is broken and the land returns to the original lord or the King.

Lot of knitty gritty in this chapter. I won’t rewrite it here.

Ch 16: 2. Of title by occupancy (Pg 454)

This is when you can go on unowned land and claim it as yours by occupying/using it. Only one case where this is allowed in English law.

Ch 17: 3. Of title by prescription (Pg 457)

Title by prescription is when a man can only use precedent to justify his ownership of it - “clearly we must own it, because we’ve been using it like we owned it for the last 3 generations!”.

Prescriptions can only apply to incorporeal hereditaments (rents, advowsons, etc). Because any physical hereditament would have a more solid kind of title (inheritance, etc).

Ch 18: 4. Of title by forfeiture (Pg 460)

Forfeiture is a punishment, upon he who committed a crime, where he loses his assets (this word has a more specific meaning explained in a prior chapter, but I will use it with today’s colloquial definition) and they go to the party injured or the public as recompense for his wrong.

Lands, tenements, and hereditaments may be forfeited by the following means:

by crimes and misdemeanors
by alienation contrary to law
by non-presentation to a benefice, when the forfeiture is denominated a lapse
by simony
by non-performance of condition
by waste
by breach of copyhold customs
by bankruptcy

Ch 19: 5. Of title by alienation (Pg 472)

Alienation refers to any method wherein estates are voluntarily resigned by one man and accepted by another. Alienation includes sale, gift, marriage, and other methods.

There are 4 ways to alien something:

deed
record
special custom
devise (will)

Covered in the subsequent chapters!

Ch 20: Of alienation by deed (Pg 477)

There is a lot of good stuff in here. Let’s go.

Wonderful quote - a deed, “is the most solemn and authentic act that a man can possibly perform, with relation to the disposal of his property; and therefore a man shall always be estopped by his own deed, or not permitted to aver or prove any thing in contradiction to what he has once so solemnly and deliberately avowed”.

Deeds at first glance are not general-purpose contracts. Deeds are legal ways to alienate property, although this encompasses more than just actual sales. However, after going through the various kinds of deeds, perhaps deeds actually encompass a large majority of most of the different kinds of contracts that may be created.

There are several requisites to a deed:

There must be people able to contract and be contracted with, and also a thing to be contracted for
The deed must be founded upon good and sufficient consideration. Such consideration can either be good or valuable. A good consideration is one of blood, or more generally, natural love and affection, and is based on motives of generosity, prudence, and natural duty. A valuable consideration is such as money or marriage, where the law esteems an equivalent given for the grant, and is thus founded upon justice.
must be written
The matter written must be legally or orderly set forth.
The dead must be read
The party must seal and sign the deed
must be delivered by the party himself or his certain attorney
the attestation, or execution of it in the presence of witnesses

Here are the written parts of a deed:

The premises, which contain the parties and the reasons for the present transaction
The habendum, which is a clarification on the estate or interest granted in the deed
The tenendum, which is mostly deprecated
The terms of stipulation, where the grantor can create or reserve something for himself out of what he has just granted, such as a rent or service
A condition, which is a clause of contingency, which is a requirement for the grant to be valid
The clause of warranty, which is an obligation on the grantor to honor the tenant to be secure in the estate. The obligation of warranty often extends to the heirs of the grantor
Covenants, which are clauses of agreement contained in a deed, where either party may stipulate for the truth of certain facts, or may bind himself to perform or give something to the other
The conclusion, which mentions the execution and date of deed

Deeds which are generally used to convey real estates, are called conveyances. Conveyances are either conveyances at common law, or receive their force and efficacy by virtue of the statute of uses.

Conveyances by the common law are either original or primary, which create a new estate, or derivative or secondary, which modify a pre-existing estate.

Original conveyances include the following:

feoffment
gift
grant
lease
exchange
partition

Derivative conveyances include the following:

release
confirmation
surrender
assignment
defeazance

Then there are conveyances which have their force and operation by virtue of the statute of uses. And again something excitingly relevant - apparently uses and trusts are in their original of a nature very similar.

The origin of the name of uses and trusts is very literal - you entrust some land to A for the use of B.

Here are the conveyances stemming from uses/trusts:

covenant to stand seised to uses
bargain and sale of lands
lease and release
deeds to lead or declare the uses of other more direct conveyances, as feoffments, fines, and recoveries
deeds of revocation of uses

Finally there are deeds which are used not to convey, but to charge or encumber, lands, and to discharge them again:

obligations or bonds
recognizances
defeazances

Ch 21: Of alienation by matter of record (Pg 505)

Assurances by matter of record are where parties are not necessarily contracting out of free will, but a court is brought in to be an authority for the transfer of property.

Such assurances include:

private acts of parliament
the King’s grants
fines
common recoveries

Ch 22: Of alienation by special custom (Pg 517)

This chapter talks about how a tenant can aliene a copyhold by first surrendering the estate to the lord, who then grants a copyhold to the next tenant.

Ch 23: Of alienation by devise (Pg 522)

Devise means will, or testament.

Ch 24: Of things personal (Pg 529)

Chattels are distributed into:

chattels real, which concern land, although they aren’t actually estates. They are simply interests issuing out of, or annexed to, real lands. Examples of chattels real and terms for years of land and wardships in chivalry. Fundamentally, it seems chattels real have limitations on their duration
chattels personal, which are things movable, and can be carried about with the owner from one part of the world to another. Examples are clothes, jewelry, and cattle

Ch 25: Of property in things personal (Pg 532)

Property in chattels is either in:

possession, which is where a man not only has the right to enjoy, but actually enjoys, the usage of the property
action, where man has only the bare right to enjoy, without the enjoyment

Property in possession

Property in possession is of two kinds - absolute and qualified:

absolute property is pretty self-explanatory, where a man has the sole and exclusive right of something, so that they cannot be transferred from him, or cease to be his, without his own act or default
qualified property is not permanent, and may sometimes subsist but at other times not subsist

Fire, light, air, and water are qualified property. As long as I am using them, it is wrong for someone else to deprive me of my enjoyment of these by soiling my windows, corrupting my air, or fouling my water.

A mail delivery man also has qualified property of the mail he is delivering. For he has the possession but not the right to own.

Property in action

An example would be where a debtor fails to make their payments, and now the debtee has a “chose” in action for some recompense.

All property in action depends entirely upon contracts, either express or implied.

Ch 26: Of title to things personal by occupancy (Pg 538)

The remaining chapters in the book talk about the 12 ways to acquire or less personal property. This chapter covers the first one - occupancy.

This chapter goes over many interesting edge cases, such as:

the right to seize goods belonging to an alien enemy
movables on the surface of the Earth or in the sea are claimable, with the exception of objects such as waifs or wrecks, which belong to the King
the elements, such as light, air, and water, can only be claimed by occupancy.
untamed animals can be claimed, except game, and royal fish
crops
accession, ie growing. For example, a plant growing
the mixing of goods
copyrights and patents, in the case of creative works or inventions

Ch 27: Of title by prerogative and forfeiture (Pg 543)

Prerogative refers to the King’s prerogative. The King has prerogative to own certain objects, and can grant them out, and in the case of prescription, the existence of an ancient grant can be assumed.

The King, among others, has the following titles by prerogative:

cannot be a joint-owner
copyright to certain literary works such as the Bible
game. The King can grant this out to people

Forfeiture is when you lose (and some other party gains) property as a result of crime or misdeameanor.

The following cases are where one loses everything they own through forfeiture:

high treason
felony
manslaughter
by flight in treason or felony
drawing a weapon on a judge
owling

Ch 28: Of title by custom (Pg 551)

Blackstone says there are too many various customs to cover. So, this chapter just covers three kinds of customary interests - heriots, mortuaries, and heir-looms.

Heriots includes heriot-service and heriot-custom. Heriot-custom is a customary tribute of goods and chattels, payable to the lord of the fee on the decease of the owner of the land. Supposedly they were originally voluntary but became a custom.

Mortuaries are like ecclesiastical heriots, being a customary gift claimed by and due to the minister in very many parishes, on the death of his parishioners. Again these were supposedly voluntary but became a custom.

Heirlooms are goods and chattel which go by custom to the heir instead of the executor of the will. Apparently all chattel other than heirlooms should go to the executor instead of the heir. Which I don’t really understand.

Ch 29: Of title by succession, marriage, and judgement (Pg 556)

Succession is only applicable to corporations aggregate, where people of real flesh and blood succeed the previous people in the corporation, and thus take up the property of the corporation.

Succession also applies to sole corporations who is representative of a number of persons, such as the head of a hospital. The exception to this rule is the King, and special cases of customs.

In marriage, property of the wife is vested in the husband. The whole reasoning behind this is, as previously discussed, that a woman’s legal entity merges into the husband’s upon marriage.

Judgement is when property is vested in someone (and taken away from someone else) by decision of court. The book makes an interesting discussion between cases where a person already has a right to property, and only acquires a possession to property, through the court. In this case, the court simply enforces property rights. But in other cases, the court can actually be a means to acquire not just possession but also a right to property at the same time. An example of this is when a court decides how much someone at fault should compensate whoever is at loss.

Ch 30: Of title by gift, grant, and contract (Pg 562)

Gifts or grants vest property in possession, whereas contracts vest property in action (right without possession).

Gifts are gratuitous (receive nothing in return) whereas grants are upon some consideration (receive something in return). As usual, gifts or grants real concern land, whereas gifts or grants personal concern chattel (personal goods).

A contract is defined as, “an agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing”. Contracts have three parts:

the agreement
the consideration
the thing to be done or omitted

Contracts can be express (everything stated literally) or implied.

Contracts may be executed (convey a chose in possession) or executory (convey a chose in action).

Considerations are divided into four kinds:

“Do, ut des” - when I give money or goods, on a contract that I shall be repaid money or goods
When I agree to do (or not do) something for someone, if they will do (or not do) something for me. Marriage falls into this category
When a man agrees to perform something for a price. Such as work
When a man agrees to pay someone for work. The inversion of the prior contract

A contract to do something on one side, without any consideration on the other, is void in law. Which makes sense. You also can’t contract someone to perform something in honor or conscience. However, reciprocity, or prior moral obligation, is enough consideration for a valid contract.

Thirdly, the thing to be done in contracts is often of four categories:

sale or exchange
bailment (a delivery of goods in trust)
hiring and borrowing
debt

Bailment is interesting. It includes situations such as a delivery man possessing mail, or an innkeeper possessing a traveler’s horse. In bailment, you give the possession of property to someone else, leaving the chose in action to the grantor. I love how this book deconstructs these concepts.

Hiring actually means renting in this chapter.

Regarding common practices related to interest rates:

bottomry (ship/good collateralized loans)
insurance, which protects against ruin
annuity for life is like a loan but without a fixed repayment schedule, and is paid over the duration of one’s life

Debts can be divided into:

debts of record (where money is due by the decision of court)
debts by specialty, or special contract
debts by contract

Ch 31: Of title by bankruptcy (Pg 580)

The English law only allows traders (merchants) to be considered bankrupt (and thus benefit from the laws of bankruptcy), because they are presumed to take on more risk than normal people.

A man who avoids creditors is bankrupt. What a good definition! This prevents a man from wasting his resources, and then claiming the benefit of the statutes, when he has nothing left to distribute. He can be declared bankrupt right from the moment he begins avoiding creditors.

Wow. If someone declared bankrupt does not surrender themselves to the government 42 days after being declared bankrupt, they “suffer death”. Which I assume is the death penalty.

But if the bankrupt person complies, “the bankrupt is entitled to a decent and reasonable allowance out of his effects, for his future support and maintenance, and to put him in a way of honest industry”. Which is nice. And they are also discharged of all debts.

Ch 32: Of title by testament, and administration (Pg 591)

Testament, and administration - by death!

Three kinds of people are not allowed to have wills:

those with lack of sufficient discretion such as children
those with lack of sufficient liberty and free will
criminals

Marriage revokes formerly made wills.

An executor is someone chosen by the testator to execute his will.

Administrator seems to be someone appointed to do such a role, which may happen if someone creates a will without specifying an executor, or doesn’t create a will at all.

The interest vested in the executor may by continued and kept alive by the will of that same executor. However, this doesn’t hold true for administrators. This is because there is a special trust between the deceased and executor, but this doesn’t hold true for administrators (who were not chosen by the deceased).

Here are the powers and duties of a rightful executor or administrator:

He must bury the deceased
He must prove the will of the deceased
He must make an inventory of all the goods and chattels
He is to collect all the goods and chattels thus inventoried. And he has very large powers and interests conferred on him by law; being the representative of the deceased, and having the same property in his goods as the principal had when living, and the same remedies to recover them.
He must pay the debts of the deceased. This includes funeral charges and legal fees
Once all the debts are paid, he must pay the legacies, which is a gift of goods and chattels by testament
Once all the specific legacies are paid, any surplus is paid to the residuary legatee, if specified. Otherwise, the surplus goes to the executor. But if there is enough reason to justify that the testator did not intend for the executor to have the surplus, it shall go to the next of kin

So an executor or administrator is kind of like a trustee, and the beneficiaries are various people like creditors or people who the deceased has left things for.

Conclusion

These first two books were not what I expected. They were both foundational and simple yet profound and complex. Not only did they cover fundamental topics such as owning things or natural rights and relations between people, but through the explanation of details, illustrated a wonderful reasoning and logic behind every law.

I would love to read the next two books on wrongs (the first two books were on rights) but I’m afraid I will have to postpone that for a later time. I think these first two books gave me enough of the foundation I wanted to study what I actually wanted to study. I also didn’t absorb 100% of the information from these first two books but I think I’ll be okay without re-reading them a second time. Anyways. Ciao!