PDA

View Full Version : Feoffment



shikamaru
09-16-12, 11:21 AM
Feoffment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment), (or Enfeoffment) in English law was a transfer of land or property that gave the new holder the right to sell it as well as the right to pass it on to his heirs as an inheritance.

After William the Conqueror invaded England (conquest), originally land did not pass by inheritance. This changed over time.
Originally, land had one owner and one owner only. Two developments changed this: (1) uses (trusts) and (2) the development of equity and equity courts in England.



It was total relinquishment and transfer of all rights of ownership of an estate in land from one individual to another.[1] In feudal England a feoffment could only be made of a fee (or "fief"), which is an estate in land, that is to say an ownership of rights over land, rather than ownership of the land itself, the only true owner of which was the monarch under his allodial title.


Could this be a legal fiction?

True owner is the sovereign, but an estate in land or ownership of rights over land can be tenured (held) by subjects?

Did the King's need for revenue and service the influence of the development of this predicament?



Enfeoffment could be made of fees of various feudal tenures, such as fee-tail or fee-simple.[2] The conveyance or delivery of possession, known as livery of seisin was effected generally on the site of the land in a symbolic ceremony of transfer from the feoffor to the feoffee in the presence of witnesses. Written conveyances were customary and mandatory after 1677.[3]

"Written conveyances were customary and mandatory after 1677" = deed (contract under seal)

Customary and mandatory = Statutory legislation from Parliament



The feoffee was thenceforward said to hold his property "of" or "from" the feoffor, in return for a specified service depending on the exact form of feudal land tenure involved in the feoffment. Thus for every holding of land during the feudal era there existed an historical unbroken chain of feoffees, in the form of overlords, ultimately springing from feoffments made by William the Conqueror himself in 1066 as the highest overlord of all. This pattern of land-holding was the natural product of William the Conqueror claiming an allodial title to all the land of England following the Norman Conquest of 1066 and parcelling it out as large fees in the form of feudal baronies to his followers, who then in turn subinfeudated the lands comprising their baronies into manors to be held from them by their own followers and knights. When the new feoffee sub-enfeoffed another person from his holding, for example where he created a new manor, he would become overlord to the person so enfeoffed, and a mesne lord within the longer historical chain of title. In modern English land law the theory of such long historical chain of title still exists for every holding in fee simple, although for practical purposes it is not necessary at the time of conveyance to recite the descent of the fee from its creation. The establishment of a national Land Registry has obviated the need for recitals of descent.

Historical chain of title or recitals of descent = title abstract

Feoffment (or Enfeoffment) = Conveyance
Feoffor = Grantor
Feoffee = Grantee
Fee = Property. Synonyms include feodum, feudum, fief (French).

Estate (in land) = an abstract of the land pertaining to its rights and duties (services, feudal land tenure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure)), but NOT the land itself.

Title = a bundle of rights
Deed = color of title. A deed colors an originating instrument as to whom is the owner.

Livery = short for "delivery"
Seisen = to grasp, to take hold, to seize

Two types of livery of seisen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_of_seisin):
- Livery in deed
- Livery in law

There is a whole mess more to cover such as the Statutes of Mortmain and Quia Emptores.
We could also spin-off from this into uses and trusts ....

Of course, feudalism as well as the concept of the fee or fief originates from Rome .....

Seosaidh
09-17-12, 12:55 PM
I hope people who know more than I do respond to the thread. It will be interesting to see how it develops. I find it interesting because I'm looking at historical claims made by the English Crown here in America, specifically New Albion in the west.

Michael Joseph
09-17-12, 03:54 PM
TAKE A LESSON IN TRUST LAW:

Luk 20:9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.

See he let it to the Husbandman ===means they are Trustees to keep and guard and look after the Vineyard. See that the Creator = Trustor = Settlor made the Vineyard for Himself and his Posterity [ever read that before?]

Luk 20:10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.

Prophets

Luk 20:11 And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.

Prophets

Luk 20:12 And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.

Prophets


The Prophets were not listened to by the Trustees.


Then: 1st Advent of Yehoshuah

Luk 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

Luk 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

Luk 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

Luk 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?


If you are Redeemed, then why issue up more debt? You are the CREDITOR - Ministering for the Glory of Yehovah ELOHIM in the Name of Yehoshuah ELOHIM - I must be about my Father's Work.

Oh they hated Yehoshuah too - when the Trustees [Tenants] saw that he was the Heir - that He Overcame the Mark of the Beast - they wanted him Dead.

Don't kid yourself friend - Nebuchadnezzar's Statue was standing on Two Legs at the time Yehoshuah walked the Earth.

Mat_21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

Mar_12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

Luk_20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

they desired to Withhold the Trust Estate from the Heir -

seize on = hold on to, or hold fast

withholdeth = holds fast. Greek. katecho. See the other occurances of this word, 2Th_2:7; Mat_21:38. Luk_4:42; Luk_8:15; Luk_14:9. Joh_5:4. Act_27:40. Rom_1:18; Rom_7:6. 1Co_7:30; 1Co_11:2; 1Co_15:2. 2Co_6:10. 1Th_5:21. Phm_1:13. Heb_3:6, Heb_3:14; Heb_10:23.

The Trustees did not want to disperse the Estate to the Heir - their power and status was in their office.

What is the Vineyard? One day people will begin to notice that the lawyers got their terms from Scripture. But fools despise instruction.

Isa 5:1 Now will I sing to My wellbeloved a song of My beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful horn:

Isa 5:2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a watchtower in the midst of it, and also made a wine-vat therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth bad grapes.

Isa 5:3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard.

Isa 5:4 What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done for it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth bad grapes ?

Isa 5:5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:

Isa 5:6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.

Isa 5:7 For the vineyard of Yehovah Sabbaoth is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for equity, but behold iniquity; for right, but behold might as used in oppression and producing a cry.


Take a lesson in nation building - In the foregoing we have a Settlor, a Trustee and a Beneficiary. There exists a grant, a grantor and a grantee. Notice that the grantee was appointed to the office of trustee which I have tried to show so many times - see that he let out the vineyard to husbandmen. To LET means to grant the use of a thing for some consideration. Look that the use was granted for their benefit but the consideration was that the Trustees would bring forth Righteousness and Equity in the Vineyard. And for that matter whereever the Vineyard touched [expanded]. Therefore the Grantee is Trustee. And the Settlor is Sovereign and will do with His Vineyard as He desires.



Shabbat Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
09-17-12, 04:01 PM
TO LET. to grant the use and possession of something for a compensation.


3. Letting is very similar to selling; the difference consists, in this; that instead of selling the thing itself, the letter sells only the use of it.

Lev 25:23 The land shall not be sold beyond recovery: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me.

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a treasure acquired for a possession unto Me above all peoples: for all the earth is Mine:


Therefore the only thing that can be sold is the USE - selling the USE is TO LET.

Therefore the ONLY thing a State can Claim is the USE. Of course some seek to throw off the CHORDS and BANDS of the SETTLOR by creating INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - as if their Souls are their own - Ref Ezek 18:4. Psalm 2.

David Merrill
09-17-12, 04:26 PM
Would returning the usufruct be the action of a Statesman?

shikamaru
09-17-12, 05:13 PM
I hope people who know more than I do respond to the thread. It will be interesting to see how it develops. I find it interesting because I'm looking at historical claims made by the English Crown here in America, specifically New Albion in the west.

You may want to investigate the writings of the Informer.
Titles to land are not extinguished by war.

You will get your answer from the Treaty of Paris (1783). The way it is worded is quite peculiar ....

Seosaidh
09-18-12, 12:25 PM
shikamaru, thanks for the tip! Trouble is, there are so many informers found by google, I have no way of knowing to which one I should go. If you have any more information it would be a great help.

Also, you said the wording in the Treaty of Paris was peculiar. In what way? I just read it several times, trying to discern what you meant, but peculiar can mean something different to different people. Could you please elaborate?

shikamaru
09-18-12, 11:50 PM
shikamaru, thanks for the tip! Trouble is, there are so many informers found by google, I have no way of knowing to which one I should go. If you have any more information it would be a great help.

Here you go:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?452-The-Informer-James-Montgomery-Dr-Frank-Wiswall-and-more-!!&highlight=Informer

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?438-The-united-states-is-still-a-british-colony&highlight=Informer



Also, you said the wording in the Treaty of Paris was peculiar. In what way? I just read it several times, trying to discern what you meant, but peculiar can mean something different to different people. Could you please elaborate?

Treaty of Paris (1783) (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris.asp)



... arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America ....

Arch-treasurer and prince elector .... of the United States of America ... wha?
If Britain lost, why would the guy surrendering refer to himself in this way ???



Article 4:

It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.


Note ... creditors still can recover their debts ....



Article 8:

The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

Exactly who lost here ???



Article 9:

In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

Some strange terms of surrender for the "losing party" if you ask me !!!