Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-428-Conveyances-operating-under-the-Statute-of-Uses.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:09:31+00:00

Document:
The Statute of Uses, as has been previously explained, gave rise to two entirely new methods of transferring legal estates in land, to-wit, the conveyance by "bargain and sale," and that by "covenant to stand seised;" the former being based upon a use raised in the intended transferee by the payment of a pecuniary consideration, usually merely nominal, and the latter being based on the declaration of a use in favor of one related by blood or marriage, the statute executing the use in both cases.44 One effect of this statute was to enable the owner of land, by a mere contract of sale and the payment to him of a pecuniary consideration, to vest the legal title in another, without any writing or ceremony whatever, and with absolute secrecy, and to prevent such secret conveyances by bargain and sale a statute was passed in the same year, called the "Statute of Enrollments,"45 requiring all bargains and sales of freehold interests, in order to be valid, to be made by deed, that is, writing under seal, enrolled in court or with certain officials. The statute did not apply to conveyances by covenant to stand seised.
42. Litt. Sec.Sec. 64, 65; Co. Litt. 51a; 2 Blackst. Comm. 323: Anonymous, 3 Salk. 157; Windsor v. Collinson, 32 Ore. 297; Long v. Fuller, 21 Wis. 121.
43. Co. Litt. 51b; 2 Blackst. Comm. 323; Eton College v. Winchester, 3 Wils. 468; Cass v. Thompson, 1 N. H. 65, 8 Am. Dec.
36; Dean v. Shelly, 57 Pa. St. 426, 98 Am. Dec. 235; Windsor v. Collinson, 32 Or. 297.
44. See ante, Sec. 100.
45. 27 Hen. VIII. c. 16 (A. D. 1535). See 2 Sanders, Uses & Trusts (5th Ed.) 64; Digby, Hist. Law Real Prop. (4th Ed.) 364.
46. See Givan v. Tout, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 210; Marshall v. Fisk, 6 Mass. 24, 4 Am. Dec. 76; Chandler v. Chandler, 55 Cal. 267; Givan v. Doe, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 210; opinion of Justices, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 595. Compare Underwood v. Campbell, 14 N. H. 393.
47. 1 Hayes, Conveyancing, (5th Ed.) 76. See ante. Sec. 100.
1565) "was the first case of this kind." See 21 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 269, Lectures on Legal History, p. 241.
48. Prof. J. B. Ames in 21 Harv. Law Rev, at p. 269, Lectures on Legal History, p. 241.
49. Sugden's Gilbert on Uses, 93; Sheppard's Touchstone, 511.
50. See Hansom v. Buckner, 4 Dana (Ky.) 251; Stovall v. Bar-nett, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 207.
51. See the full discussion by White, J., in Thompson v. Thompson. 17 Ohio St. 649. That a covenant to stand seised in favor of a son in law or daughter in law is valid see also, Gale v. Coburn, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 397; Bell v. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381, 41 Am. Dec. 706; Contra, Corwin v. Corwin, 9 Barb. 219 6 N. Y. 342.
52. 2 Preston, Conveyancing, 373; Jackson v. Pike, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 69; Redmond v. Cass, 226 111. 120.
53. 2 Sanders, Uses & Trusts (5th Ed.) 56.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.