ORIGIN OF USES AND TRUSTS

BY JAMES BARR AMES

 HARWARD LAW REVIEW
The Harvard Law Review published its first issue on April 15, 1887,
making it one of the oldest operating student- edited law reviews in the
United States. The first female editor of the journal was Priscilla
Holmes. Harvard Law Review Association publishes the Blue book
which is a uniform citation followed widely for legal citation. Basically
it is a student edition for review.

YALE LAW JOURNAL REVIEW

Yale Law Journal is a student law review which is affiliated with the
Yale Law School. It was published since continuously from 1891 by the
students at Yale Law School. This journal contains articles, essays,
features, and book reviews by professional legal scholars and student-
written notes and comments. This journal is completely edited by
students. This journal is being published eight times per year.
 VOLUME 21

The Origin of Uses and Trusts is taken from the 21 volume of the
Harvard Law Review which was published in the year 1907- 1908.
This volume contains many articles which are related to Origin of
Uses and Trusts, Eminent Domain, Compensation, Rights of
Executory Devisee, The Clog on the Equity of Redemption, Damages,
Measure of Damages, Loss of Use of Automobile..
This volume contains cases like Tyrells case, Finchs case, Foord v
Hoskins, Sambach v Dalton.
 AUTHOR
James Barr Ames was born in Boston, June 22, 1846 .He was well
known as a gained captain of Base Ball Nine in college
In 1870, he entered the Harvard Law School where Langdell was made
Dean of the School. Immediately thereafter became Assistant Professor
in the School in 1873
He devoted himself with rare singleness of purpose to the work of Law
School.
He was appointed a full Professor in 1877, becoming Bussey professor
in 1879 and succeeding Professor Langdell in 1903 in the Dane
professorship.
As a teacher, Ames prepared a number of volumes of Selected Cases on
different branches of the law.
He was Chairman of the Section of Legal Education of the American
Bar Association in 1904, and for some years a Commissioner of Massa
chusetts for the Promotion of Uniformity of State Laws.
In the Autumn of 1909, he suffered a slight cerebral hemorrhage which
was followed by others more severe, and on January 8, 1910, he died at
New Ipswich.
 ORIGIN OF USES AND TRUSTS
USES
This article firstly by taking the views relating and supporting to Early
English Equity brings forward as his chief evidence feoffments to
uses.
He gives an interesting account of the origin of uses, and seems to him
that the doctrine of uses is as little the creation of subpoena or of decrees
requiring personal obedience.
Equity lays stress upon the duty of the defendant.
The ethical character of equitable relief gives not merely a better remedy
than the law gives, but the only remedy.
Ex: bills by the bailor for the recovery of a chattel from a defendant in
possession of it after the death of the bailee.
The equitable relief was given in early times, as in later times, by
commanding the obedience of the defendant.
 For a considerable time both the feoffors and other cestuis que use were
well enough protected.
No case has been found in which the feoffor obtained relief against the
feoffee to uses on the latters covenant to perform the use.
In Statham one case of a use is under the title Conscience and the
others under Subpoena. In Fitzherbert all the cases are under the title
Subpoena.
The buyer of the land who had paid or become a debtor for the price of
the land, was given the right of a cestui que use.
There is a maxim in the law that a rent, a common, annuity and such
other things as lie not in manual occupations, may not have
commencement, nor be granted to none other without writing.
Distinction between the oral grant for value and the parol gratuitous
grant.
Grants of chattels and money, although gratuitous, were operative at
common law, in the form of instruments under seal.
In Sharrington v Strotton, Plowd-it is solemnly argued that a deed
should raise an use without any other consideration.
 TRUSTS

The strange doctrine of Tyrells Case-the object of the legislature

appears to have been the annihilation of the common law use.
The decision in Tyrells case was due to the absurd narrowness of the
courts of law.
The use is utterly void because by the sale of money the use appears;
and to limit another(second use appear by deed) is merely repugnant to
the first use, and they cannot stand together.
There is on the other hand, positive evidence to the contrary, in
Crompton Courts.
In Reynell v Peacock, it was given that A bargain and sale and demise
may be upon a secret trust, but not upon a use.
The modern passive trust seems to have arisen for substantially the same
reasons which gave rise to the ancient use.