Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-4-Incorporeal-things-real.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:57:28+00:00

Document:
26. As in the expressions "real estate brokers" and "real estate transactions."
27. Holland's Jurisprudence (9th Ed.) 93, 97; Challis, Real Prop. (3rd Ed.) 49 et seq.; Williams, Real Prop. (21st Ed.) 4, 30.
The division of real things or hereditaments into "corporeal" and "incorporeal" has been the subject of vehement objection by Austin (Jurisprudence (3rd Ed.) 371, 804), and by Digby (Hist. Real Prop. (4th Ed.) 304, note), on the ground that the law is concerned only with rights, while this division confuses rights and things which are the objects of rights, and treats them as if they were in pari materia. So it is said by Professor Hohfield (23 Yale Law Journ. at p. 23) referring to Blackstone's discussion of corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments. "Since all legal interests are "incorporeal"-consisting, as they do, of more or less limited aggregates of abstract legal relations-such a supposed contrast as that sought to be drawn by Blackstone can but serve to mislead the unwary. The legal interest of the fee simple owner of land and the comparatively limited interest of the owner of a "right of way" over such land are alike as far as "incorporeality" is concerned; the true contrast consists, of course, primarily in the fact that the fee simple owner's aggregate of legal relations is far more extensive than the aggregate of the easement owner." See also Salmond, Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) 220 et. seq.
28. 2 Blackst. Comm. 17; 3 Kent's Comm. 401; Challis, Real Prop. 28.
29. 2 Blackst. Comm. c. 3.
"Commons," "ways," and "rents," with which are to be included some other incorporeal things not named by Blackstone, belong to the category of what we have before referred to under the name of "Rights as to the use and profits of another's land."
30. 3 Kent. Comm. 454; Mech-em, Public Officers Sec. 464.
31. 2. Blackst. Comm. 37.
32. Bank of Augusta v. Earle. 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519, 595, 10 L. Ed. 274.
33. That is, the government cannot grant to a person rights as to the use or profits of another's land.
34. Reg. v. Cambrian Ry. Co. L. R. 6 Q. B. 422.
35. 3 Kent. Comm. 457; Alexandria Canal R. & Bridge Ce. v.
District of Columbia, 5 Mackey (16 D. C.) 376; Gibbs v. Drew, 16 Fla. 147; 26 Am. Rep. 700; Tuck-ahoe Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe & J. R. R. Co., 11 Leigh (Va.) 42, 76, 36 Am. Dec. 374; Phalen v. Com. 1 Rob. (Va.) 713, aff'd 8 How. (U. S.) 163, 12 L. Ed. 1030; Sellers v. Union Lumbering Co., 39 Wis. 525, 527.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.