Talk:Statute of Uses
 | Statute of Uses has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Dissolution of the monasteries
editThe idea that the statute of uses was a means to facilitate the dissolution of the monastries is a very interesting one. No doubt the church had a great interest in ensuring that the device was one which could be enforced, and prior to the Statute of uses it was enforced by the Court of Chancery. However this is the first time I have come across the contention that it was primarly motivated by Henry VIII's desire to dislove the church. I would like to know the source for such a contention 89.100.253.127 01:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Lee
Trust as a replacement for use
editThe article contains the following: "More importantly, the Statute led to the development of the trust as a replacement." But under English_trust_law#History it says:
"However, when Henry VIII was gone, the Court of Chancery held that it had no application where land was leased. Moreover, the primacy of equity over the common law was reasserted, supported by King James I in 1615, in the Earl of Oxford’s case.[8] The institution of the use continued, as new sources of revenue from the mercantile exploits in the New World decreased the Crown's reliance on feudal dues. By the early 1700s, the use had formalised into a trust:[9] where land was settled to be held by a trustee, for the benefit of another, the Courts of Chancery recognised the beneficiary as the true owner in equity."
It's not clear from this whether the trust is the use by another name, or if it is a new type of object. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The latter, in many ways; I'd note that the other article is a poorly-referenced, overly long mass of randomly-placed links and tremendously large paragraphs. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Incomprehensible
editThis article is very nearly incomprehensible. It badly needs a much clearer explanation of the history and nature of uses as background for the rest of the article. It seems to assume that the reader has such a background. Few will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.69.172 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)