Peter King's reply is right but if Adrian is not a lawyer then this
might help further:-
>There seems to be a difference between these two descriptions of John Smiths
>tenure (from a Chancery bill of 1652). Is there enough quoted here to say what
>it is?
No. In fact the bill shows that there was a dispute as to what is was.
John Smith is said to claim that he has a fee simple (absolute ownership
for ever). James Smith says that John Smith only has a life interest.
If someone has a life interest then after his death someone else takes
over the land - they have the "reversion". Here James is claiming that
he has the reversion and can sell it. John would be saying that there
was no reversion and therefore nothing to sell.
Who would win would depend, mainly, on what deeds (or other evidence)
each side could produce.
If you need any further information the books to try are:
J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, Butterworths
A.W.B. Simpson, A History of the Land Law, Oxford University Press
in both cases using whatever the latest edition happens to be (and I
expect Amazon will tell you).
--
Frank Sharman
Wolverhampton, UK.
tel: +44 01902 763246
look: no quotes, no graphics!
|