An English subject may enjoy the absolute ownership of goods, but not of land. The law does not recognize absolute ownership of land.
— WILLIAMS on Real Property (17th edition), p. 6.
Section II. Of Property in Land and Goods in English Law.
Having thus examined the meaning of ownership and property, our next step towards apprehending the nature of real property will be to advert to the distinction drawn in English law between property in land and property in moveable goods. It is this:—An English subject may enjoy the absolute ownership of goods, but not of land (n). The law does not recognise absolute ownership of land, unless in the hands of the Crown; and the greatest interest in land, which a subject can have, is an estate in fee simple (o), that is to say, an estate inheritable by his blood-relations, collateral as well as lineal, according to the legal order of succession, and held feudally of some lord by some kind of service. For by English law, the king is the supreme owner, or lord paramount, of every parcel of land in the realm (p); and all land is holden of some lord or other, and either immediately or mediately (q) of the king (r). But it must not be supposed, because an English subject can have no absolute, interminable and underived (s) ownership of land, that proprietary rights in land are unknown to the law. On the contrary, the law secures to every one, who holds an estate in land, the exclusive enjoyment of his holding, and gives him the right to maintain or recover possession thereof against all others (t). To an estate in fee simple there are moreover now incident the rights of free enjoyment and free disposition; so that such an estate is well-nigh equivalent to absolute property (u). It is common to speak of land-owners and the ownership of land; and such expressions are found even in Acts of Parliament (x). English law then recognises property in but not absolute ownership of land; the most absolute property in land that a subject can have is but an estate (y). Here may be explained what is meant by this word estate, which will be constantly encountered by the student of real property law. Everyone knows that a man's lands are often referred to as his estate or his estates; but the popular sense of the word is a modification of its legal meaning. Estate is the Latin word status (z), which originally denoted a man's personal condition in law (a), but was used to describe, first, the nature of his interest in land, and then the extent of such interest (b). In law, a land-holder's estate is his interest in the land, of which he is tenant; and the word is especially used to denote the extent of his interest. Thus a man is said to have an estate for life in land, or an estate of inheritance, as an estate in fee simple; and all his estate in his land is equivalent to all his right therein (c). The word estate also has a third meaning. It is used to denote the whole of any person's valuable interest in land or goods. A man's whole "estate" is equivalent to all his "property"; it includes all his valuable rights (d).
The student, being informed of the distinction drawn in English law between property in land and property in goods, and knowing that real property has to do with the ownership of land, may perhaps be inclined to conclude that real property must be property in land, while property in goods is personal property. Unfortunately the matter is not so simple. Real property certainly is for the most part property in land; but all property in land is not real property. The explanation of this is to be found in the circumstances of our legal history. We must look for the answer to the days of our early common law. This will lead us back to the times immediately following the Norman Conquest, when the doctrine of the feudal tenure of land was established as part of our law; to the reign of Henry II., when judges of the King's Court were first appointed to sit permanently on the Bench (e), and our oldest legal text-book, that attributed to (f), appeared; and to the days of Glanville Bracton, who was an English judge under King Henry III., and wrote a treatise of high merit and authority on the laws of England (g).
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY, INTENDED AS A FIRST BOOK FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS IN CONVEYANCING.
BY THE LATE JOSHUA WILLIAMS,RE-ARRANGED AND PARTLY RE-WRITTEN BY HIS SON, T. CYPRIAN WILLIAMS, 1906
BY THE LATE JOSHUA WILLIAMS,RE-ARRANGED AND PARTLY RE-WRITTEN BY HIS SON, T. CYPRIAN WILLIAMS, 1906
First, edition published 1845
Second „ 1849
Third 1852
Fourth „ 1855
Fifth ,. , 1859
Sixth ,. , 1862
Seventh „ 1865
Eighth „ , 1868
Ninth , 1871
Tenth „ „ 1873
Eleventh ,. .... 1875
Twelfth „ 1877
Thirteenth edition published (the last prepared by the Author) 1880
Fourteenth „ ., (by the present Editor) . . 1882
Fifteenth „ „ „ „ ... 1885
Sixteenth „ „ ,, .. . 1887
Seventeenth ,, ,, (re-arranged and largely re-written) 1892
Eighteenth „ 1896
Nineteenth „ „ . . . ... 1901
Second „ 1849
Third 1852
Fourth „ 1855
Fifth ,. , 1859
Sixth ,. , 1862
Seventh „ 1865
Eighth „ , 1868
Ninth , 1871
Tenth „ „ 1873
Eleventh ,. .... 1875
Twelfth „ 1877
Thirteenth edition published (the last prepared by the Author) 1880
Fourteenth „ ., (by the present Editor) . . 1882
Fifteenth „ „ „ „ ... 1885
Sixteenth „ „ ,, .. . 1887
Seventeenth ,, ,, (re-arranged and largely re-written) 1892
Eighteenth „ 1896
Nineteenth „ „ . . . ... 1901
Comments