Talk:Ejectment

Comments

I have removed the template 'inapporopriate tone', because I do not see one. I have also added a description of the fictitious form of ejectment in English law; I hope I have done so correctly. Peterkingiron 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that my post (same date as this post) on the talk page of the article on eviction would also apply here. There is little agreement across jurisdictions on the precise meaning of "ejectment," "eviction," "forcible detainer," and so on, as to present-day practice and procedure. A reader should be aware of this variation across jurisdictional boundaries. I’ll welcome any thoughts or feedback; as I noted on the talk page for the eviction article, I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, though “eviction” law is something I do day-in and day-out. Zajacd01 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The criticism that the article fails to deal adequately with the continuing non-fictitious use of ejectment proceedings is fully warranted. I have made some amendments, which (I hope) deal with this better. Peterkingiron 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing wording

By the second paragraph it is no longer possible to tell who is doing what to whom. All I can tell is that somebody gave a lease to somebody, and somebody gave a lease to somebody, and then suddenly nobody is suing nobody for something, and somebody has to answer for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.5.185 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all right, that's what is happening. Or what would be if it were.

"And so, 'tis clear as is the summer's sky" -Henry V, act I

What jurisdictions in the U.S. still use this? The article is not clear on that point

The article is very unclear about why this is done

What peculiarities of law made it easier to the following than suing over the matter directly:

• Let claimant pretend to lease the land to John Doe.
• Pretend defendant is leasing the same to William Styles.
• Pretend William Styles evicted John Doe based on the second fictional lease.
• Ask defendant to appear on behalf of William Styles.

By the way, did I understand the procedure correctly? And what happens if the defendant does or does not show up? If he doesn't, would the court pass a default judgement saying that John Doe was unjustly evicted, and if so, how would that help the real claimant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Remember that this describes the procedure as it was hundreds of years ago. The reason for using it was that the procedure for trying claims to freehold was very archaic and cumbersome.

If a judgment in default was entered, the effect would be to allow the claimant ("lessor of the plaintiff") to enter the land. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

@‘The reason for using it was that the procedure for trying claims to freehold was very archaic and cumbersome.’: What caused the procedure to be so complicated / take so long? This isn't really made clear, nor is it made clear how the courts dealt with an even more complicated procedure in a more expedient manner.

@‘the effect would be to allow the claimant ("lessor of the plaintiff") to enter the land’: He was already allowed that though, as the defendant couldn't sue him if he did, nor legally throw him out, on account of him not owning the land. The real trick is getting the defendant kicked out of the land.

Also, a question: what would happen if the claimant did not in fact have the right to the land? As I see it, the defendant must appear in court to prevent a default judgement, but if he does the claimant could tell the court that the defendant is lieing about the lease, so he's screwed either way. What safeguard against deciding unlawful claims is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The proper procedure for trying the title to freehold was the "writ of right". In this procedure, a case started in the court of the feudal lord, and was then removed to the county court and again to the Common Pleas; a series of proclamations was made inviting any other possible claimants. In the Common Pleas, only serjeants at law had a right of audience (in today's terms, think very expensive QCs). The mode of trial was by combat, though this could be avoided by a procedure called the "grand assise", where four knights of the shire summoned twelve other knights to act as a kind of jury.

In ejectment, the only complexity was in the existence of fictitious allegations in the original claim: after that, everything proceeded exactly like an action for trespass. If the defendant did join the proceedings, he could not deny the fictitious leases (or he would have had no right to intervene), but everything else about the rights of the real parties was up for discussion in an ordinary jury trial. Blackstone explains it well.

We inherit an old Gothic castle, erected in the days of chivalry, but fitted up for a modern inhabitant. The moated ramparts, the embattled towers, and the trophied halls, are magnificent and venerable, but useless. The interior apartments, now converted into rooms of convenience, are cheerful and commodious, though their approaches are winding and difficult.

--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The discussion so far should provide plenty material for an article rewrite. Unfortunately, I cannot consider myself an expert in the field; maybe you could have a go?

I can't make heads or tails of this article

I'm a reasonably educated person, though not a historian or a lawyer, and I came away from this article far more confused than when I started.

Terms like "disseisin" are thrown around with no context or definition, extensive and obscure quotes are given without explanation, and qulifying terms like "originally" and "some jurisdictions" are given with no elaboration.

this article needs to be rewritten from scratch - even a one-paragraph stub would be an improvement if it was legible to a layman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:79E1:ABC:A201:6570:D13C:59F:587 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)