英美财产法之Estate研究
摘要
随着财产形态的多元化及财产利用观念的转变,大陆法系传统的“所有权”观念遭遇瓶颈,亟待寻求疏解方案,开放而灵活的英美财产法显然是可供借鉴的参照系。英美财产法确切来讲是"the Law of Estate",其以"Estate"为核心构筑财产法的基本理念和权益分割体系,是迥异于大陆法“所有权”概念的一套语言体系和思维模式。比较借鉴的前提是对借鉴客体的正确认知,本文即以财产和财产权分割为视角对英美财产法上这一“用我们的语言无法翻译的" Estate从基本理念、法律思维和体系构造等多角度进行梳理,以期为我国财产权制度的完善提供一个原态的参照范式和样本。
本文以大陆法的概念思维加之英美法的历史推演模式展开论述,不以制度为重点、不以案例为特色,着眼于英美财产法之基本理念及特有法律思维,以历史发展为主线,以财产及财产权分割为副线论述Estate概念及理念的源起、基本内容、现代发展与变革趋势等。除导论和余论外,正文部分分六章展开论述。
导论部分对选题背景、研究现状进行了简要概括,并限定了本课题的研究范围和研究方法,即始于财产法但并不终于财产法,以Estate的历史发展及理念为核心。
第一章是宏观和总括性的论述,对现代英美财产法之基本理念和特有的语言体系进行了解读,并在这一整体背景下概括描绘了Estate之于财产法的重要地位,以明确这一议题的重要价值。不同于大陆法对物上绝对所有权的强调,英美财产法重视所有权的可分割性,但其分割的并非实物而是抽象的“权利束”(bundle of rights),其通过被统称为Estate的一系列法律允许的权利束来完成其财产权益的设置。Estate权益体系决定着所有权的分割方式,也即哪些权益可以创设以及如何创设,是英美财产法的基础与核心。对Estate的考察可以从概念、理念、制度、法律工具等多角度进行。在Estate的形成和发展过程中,英美法学者们形成了特有的法律思维模式,他们运用这一独特的思维模式,创设了独具英美法特色的一系列理念或法律工具,如“抽象实体”理念、第四维的时间分割,权利“物”化等等,这些都是英美财产法的基础理念,并因为英美法系“不设边际”的灵活性特点而广泛适用于整个财产法的各种财产形态。
第二章是对Estate的历史解读。对Estate的解读必须回溯到中世纪财产法产生之初,其时土地分封而形成的Tenure保有制是Estate之制度依托,由Tenure次级分封向同级让与的转变过程中,Estate体系逐渐完备。Tenure制度中孕育的财产理念、法律思维等更是理解Estate的基础。Tenure最大的意义就在于把实物土地(权利载体)与地上权益分离开来,使土地上的种种权益可以单独分封、转让,这种多权利并存的封地制度及实物与权益相分离的理念成就了后来的Estate体系。
第三章是关于Estate的基本界定和特有属性。笔者首先对其在不同语境下的基本含义进行了分析。Estate一词随着时代的变迁不断更新其内涵,对其内涵的理解必须结合语境。其次笔者对其权益切分的微积分运作模式进行了分析,并从中概括出其特有属性及法律思维的运用。Estate的基本理念是所有权不依附于土地本身,而是依附于一个“抽象实体”(Notional entity)。此实体可依据不同的原则或标准(如时间、功能等)而被分割。该抽象实体被分割之后,权利人在土地上拥有的是一束束的法律权益(Sets of legal interests),这些权利束都被统称为Estate。这些权利束或者说Estate在法律上又被视为具体的Thing(物),即Reification“权利物化”,经过这一权利物化技术的使用,各类Estate又可以被作为“物”进一步分割,由此循环下去,财产上的权益可以被无限微分,这就是Estate微积分式的权益分割模式。这些不同的Estate权利束并没有像大陆法一样被预设优先性,他们不论分割先后、权利束大小皆平等并存,权利束本身只是表征其权益内容,并不关涉权益救济,不同种类的Estate发生纠纷之时通过各自的Title (权属)来确认。
第四章和第五章分别从普通法和衡平法两方面论述了Estate的权益形态。这也是Estate体系中最为核心的几种权益切分方式。其一,时间维度的权益切分,英美法学者称之为物理三维分割之外的第四维,这是英美财产法最基本和最原始的权益切分模式,其将土地上“连绵不断的时间线”进行切分并分配给不同的人,使多人可以同时拥有土地上的不同时间。享受土地上当前时间段者可以取得土地的现实占有,即"Present estate",而享受未来时间段者则在未来某个时间取得占有,即"Future interest".未来权益不仅仅是一种期待,它是一种法定的既得权益,与当前权益有同等的法律地位。这就是英美财产法estate体系最核心的两类权益。根据享有土地上权益的时间长短,当前权益又分为Fee simple, Fee tail,Life estate, Leasehold等,除绝对的Fee simple即完整的“时间线”外,其他的每一种权益的设置都会产生“剩余的时间线”即未来权益。未来权益又分成为受让人而设的和为让与人而设的两大类。其二,共有权益,即同一时间点上的多主体共有,这是与横向时间分割垂直的纵向权益分割模式。共有的传统形态有Tenants in common(普通共有)、Joint tenants (联合共有)等,这些传统形态从土地上发展而来,现今已广泛适用于其他财产形态。共有权益的现代形态主要是从土地上的建筑物尤其是住宅的变化发展而来的,主要适用于住宅的共有所有权形态,如建筑物区分所有、合作公寓、分时度假等,这是依托于Estate时间分割而形成的复杂化的权益构成。其三,衡平法上的Estate。衡平法上的Estate是研究Estate体系不可忽视的重要组成,其主要通过信托的使用而创设。Trust不仅是Use这种财产安排方式的复活,也是衡平法Estate的全面复活,它使得英美财产法的双轨财产体系进一步深化,也使得衡平法理念变得更为成熟,并出现了一系列普通法中并没有对应物的衡平法的Estate Trust这一法律技术的运用,一方面使普通法上创设的Estate体系延伸到衡平法领域,同时也是权益分割的全新维度即功能切分：将占有管理权能同收益权能分离开来分属于不同的权益人。其更为突出的贡献在于将Estate体系适用的范围从土地等Real property拓展到Personal property,尤其是现代价值日益膨胀的无形财产上。Estate最初源生于土地,但随着越来越多的无形财产具有了和土地类似的特性,即相当长时间内产生稳定的收益,并可以随时确定其存在,原本适用于土地上的权益分割技术开始通过信托更广泛地应用于无形财产。这些都凸显了Estate体系的灵活性与现代适应性。Estate、Trust等理念、技术相结合共同构筑了现代财产法上的权益分割模式。Trust作为“英美法最伟大的创造”,也是现今财产规划(Estate Planning)最主要的工具,其充斥于英美财产法的每一个角落,殊值大陆法系国家学习和借鉴。
第六章Estate之当代反思。Estate之优劣得失都在于其特有的灵活性。Estate特有的抽象理念使其可以根据需要“任意裁剪”,此制度积极鼓励新权益的创设,保存和分配财产利益的方式也多样化,具有极大的灵活性,可以适应纷繁多变的经济生活并满足不同的需求。然而,灵活性的实现是以法律制度的高度复杂为代价的。Estate体系的复杂性、易生欺诈性再加上其沉重的历史性等诸多问题的存在,使Estate体系的重构成为必要。英美法国家力图简化Estate体系而进行了多次改革,英国1925年财产法改革取得了显著成效,美国正在进行的第三次财产法重述中也在努力实现这一目标。学理上对Estate的反思更为全面而深入,从Estate这一概念的去留到Estate中内隐的类型法定原则的取舍,从Estate这一典型的“旧瓶新酒”制度对Realty和Personalty的统一适用趋势到法定Estate向衡平Estate的游离及二者的消融等从多角度对Estate的未来趋势进行思考。
余论部分简要论及了对我国的启示。鉴于展示英美财产法制度原态的出发点和体系连贯性的维持,本文没有采用比较研究的方式展开全文的论述,仅在文末抛砖引玉简单论及几点最核心的启示：其一,所有权的新解。笔者提出增加归属权能为所有权权能之组成,或者回复“抽象所有权”的标签含义,以还其作为“权利”的本质。其二,财产观念的重构。我们可以保留传统的所有权制度,但应引入更高层次的财产权概念,对新型财产权则赋予它与所有权、债权平等的地位。其三,财产权益形态的多元化。应当借鉴英美财产法之权益切分模式及相关法律工具,进一步拓展财产的利用方式。其四,对信托这一主要的财产规划工具的深度借鉴。囿于笔力和本文的主题,笔者并没有对这些启示展开论述,只是“浅尝辄止”,试图为我国的财产法改革及后来者提供一个可供参考的视角和思路。
In modern society, we pay more attention to the use of property than its ownership, and there are many new kinds of property appear. In this background, the notion of ownership in civil law can not adapt to the change very well, it happens to bottle-neck. Property law in common law system definitely can be a good reference. Its property law is the law of estate, which is totally different from the law of ownership. For our borrowing, we must know well of the system, which is the aim of this dissertation. In this dissertation, I try to clarify the notion of estate, find the way of thinking, and sort out the system of estate for the aim of giving an original sample for reference.
In this dissertation, there are no institution, no case, just the notion, concept, way of thinking. I focus on the basic concept and development history; give a full introduction on the concept of estate, the origin of the notion, the basic content, the modern development and reform. The dissertation includes three parts, part I Introduction, part II Body, which includes seven chapters; part III Revelation.
In the part of introduction, I give a simple outline for the background and the present institution of the topic. I define the extent of the research, start from the property law but not end of it. The development history of estate is the key line.
Chapter I is a general introduction of property law. I explain the basic notion and the special language system in modern property law, and point out the important position of estate in it. Different from the absolute ownership in civil law, common law pay more attention to the division or split of ownership, but what they split is not the real things but bundle of rights. These kinds of bundle of rights, so-called estate, are the modes of property rights in common law. The system of estates regulates the way of split of ownership, that means what kinds of property right can be created and how to be created are decided by this system. In the development of estate, the common law scholars bring up a very special legal thinking, then they create a series of tools by this thinking, such as notional entity, time-fragment, reification etc. these tools or notions can be applied to every kinds of property, not only the tangible and intangible, but the imagine of people's mind. Estate is historic and varying concept, and is very important to property law.
Chapter II is about the history of estate. We must back to the middle age when we try to explain the origin of estate. The tenure in feudalism is the soil of estate. In the process of subinfeudation to substitution, the system of estates comes to be perfect. The main meaning of tenure is that it divides the interests out of land itself, so these interests can be transferred separately. These kinds of notion become to be the key content of the system of estates.
Chapter III is about the content of estate. Firstly, I give a general definition to the concept of estate, then analysis the process of how these property rights are cut and the use of way of thinking. The basic notion of estate is that ownership does not attach itself to land, but to a notional entity, which can be divided in different ways, such as time, function. After be divided, owners in the land own different bundle of rights, which are all called estates. Then they treat these estates as things in law, in other word, reification. After the fiction, there kinds of things can be divided again, step by step, a mode of calculus appears. We should notice that all these kinds of estate are equal in law, they just stand for the content of interests, not refer to remedy. When they happen to conflict, the concept of title will on the stage.
Chapter IV and V are about legal estates and equitable estates. The two chapters involve three main ways of split of property. First, time-fragment which is beyond the physical dimension is called the fourth dimension. It is the most basic and primitive segmentation model, it cuts "the endless time line "on land to pieces and assigns to different people, so that people can have rights on the land at different times. If can enjoy the land in current time and obtain the possession of the land of reality, it is called present estate. If enjoy the next time period, and can obtain possession at a future time, it is future interest. Future interest is not an expectant right, it is a statutory right, vested right, protected by the court. These two kinds of rights are the core moods of rights in the system of estate. According to the length of time to enjoy the land, the current interest is divided into fee simple, fee tail, life tail, life estate, leasehold, In addition to absolute fee simple, other kinds of rights will have a time remainder when they are set, that is future interest. Future interests are divided into two categories, one for assignee and the other for grantor. Second, concurrent interests, it means people can own the same property in the same time. It has some traditional types, Tenants in common, Joint tenants, etc. these traditional forms evolved from the land, has now been extensively applied to other forms of property. Its modern forms mainly develop from the land, especially residential buildings, such as condominium, cooperative apartments, timesharing, etc. these forms are based on the time fragment but beyond it. Third, Equitable estate, it is an important component of estate system, and can not be ignored. It is created mainly by trust. Use this Trust is not only a revival of the use, which is a way of property arrangement, but also the resurrection of equitable estates, which makes the dual-track system go further. Not only it extends the estates system to the field of equity, but also it is a new dimension of segmentation, function split, that means it separate the power of management and the right to get income to different people. Its prominent contribution is that it extends the scope of estates system from real property to personal property, especially intangible property, such as bonds. Estate was originally born in the land, but as more and more intangible property has a similar feature with land, that is to say, they can exist in quite a long time and generate a stable income, it begin to apply to securities and other intangible property. These are highlights of the flexible and modern adaptation of estates system. Estate, Trust and other concepts combine together to build a modern property law on the rights and interests of time and space. Trust as "the greatest creation of the common law" is the most important tool of estate planning. It is full of every corner of property law, is what we should learn.
Chapter VI is about the contemporary of estate. The advantages and disadvantages of estate are all depends on its unique flexibility. By the abstract concepts, estate can be cut in many ways to meet the needs of life. It encourages the creation of new kinds of rights, and can preserves and distributes the property interests in diverse ways, with great flexibility, so it can be adapted to numerous and varied economic life and meet different needs. However, flexibility is at the cost of highly complex. The complexity coupled with its heavy historical make the reconstruction of estate system to be necessary. These years, Common law countries carry out reforms and seek to simplify the estate system. The property law reforms in1925the United Kingdom made remarkable achievements, the third restatement of property law the United States is also working to achieve this goal. Doctrinal reflection on estate is more comprehensive and in-depth, such as the concept of estate, keep or abandon; numerus clausus, recognize or not; the uniform of realty and personalty; the trend from legal estates to equitable estates, and the ablation of them.
The last part briefly discusses the revelation to property law in China. Considering of the display of property law in common law, and keeping consistency, I do not use the method of comparison, but just give some tips in the last part. First, the new view of ownership. I propose to increase the power of vesting to the composition of ownership, or return the ownership to its "abstract title" tag, treat the tag itself as a "right". Second, reconstruction of the concept of property, I suggest that retain the traditional ownership system, but introduce a higher level, the concept of property rights. Third, diversification of forms of property rights and interests, we should try to borrow the tool of property law in common law countries. Fourth, Trust, the main estate planning tool in common law, is worth for depth reference. For my ability and the limitation of the dissertation, I do not go further in the revelation, just "taste" some ideas, and provide a perspective to later people.
本文以大陆法的概念思维加之英美法的历史推演模式展开论述,不以制度为重点、不以案例为特色,着眼于英美财产法之基本理念及特有法律思维,以历史发展为主线,以财产及财产权分割为副线论述Estate概念及理念的源起、基本内容、现代发展与变革趋势等。除导论和余论外,正文部分分六章展开论述。
导论部分对选题背景、研究现状进行了简要概括,并限定了本课题的研究范围和研究方法,即始于财产法但并不终于财产法,以Estate的历史发展及理念为核心。
第一章是宏观和总括性的论述,对现代英美财产法之基本理念和特有的语言体系进行了解读,并在这一整体背景下概括描绘了Estate之于财产法的重要地位,以明确这一议题的重要价值。不同于大陆法对物上绝对所有权的强调,英美财产法重视所有权的可分割性,但其分割的并非实物而是抽象的“权利束”(bundle of rights),其通过被统称为Estate的一系列法律允许的权利束来完成其财产权益的设置。Estate权益体系决定着所有权的分割方式,也即哪些权益可以创设以及如何创设,是英美财产法的基础与核心。对Estate的考察可以从概念、理念、制度、法律工具等多角度进行。在Estate的形成和发展过程中,英美法学者们形成了特有的法律思维模式,他们运用这一独特的思维模式,创设了独具英美法特色的一系列理念或法律工具,如“抽象实体”理念、第四维的时间分割,权利“物”化等等,这些都是英美财产法的基础理念,并因为英美法系“不设边际”的灵活性特点而广泛适用于整个财产法的各种财产形态。
第二章是对Estate的历史解读。对Estate的解读必须回溯到中世纪财产法产生之初,其时土地分封而形成的Tenure保有制是Estate之制度依托,由Tenure次级分封向同级让与的转变过程中,Estate体系逐渐完备。Tenure制度中孕育的财产理念、法律思维等更是理解Estate的基础。Tenure最大的意义就在于把实物土地(权利载体)与地上权益分离开来,使土地上的种种权益可以单独分封、转让,这种多权利并存的封地制度及实物与权益相分离的理念成就了后来的Estate体系。
第三章是关于Estate的基本界定和特有属性。笔者首先对其在不同语境下的基本含义进行了分析。Estate一词随着时代的变迁不断更新其内涵,对其内涵的理解必须结合语境。其次笔者对其权益切分的微积分运作模式进行了分析,并从中概括出其特有属性及法律思维的运用。Estate的基本理念是所有权不依附于土地本身,而是依附于一个“抽象实体”(Notional entity)。此实体可依据不同的原则或标准(如时间、功能等)而被分割。该抽象实体被分割之后,权利人在土地上拥有的是一束束的法律权益(Sets of legal interests),这些权利束都被统称为Estate。这些权利束或者说Estate在法律上又被视为具体的Thing(物),即Reification“权利物化”,经过这一权利物化技术的使用,各类Estate又可以被作为“物”进一步分割,由此循环下去,财产上的权益可以被无限微分,这就是Estate微积分式的权益分割模式。这些不同的Estate权利束并没有像大陆法一样被预设优先性,他们不论分割先后、权利束大小皆平等并存,权利束本身只是表征其权益内容,并不关涉权益救济,不同种类的Estate发生纠纷之时通过各自的Title (权属)来确认。
第四章和第五章分别从普通法和衡平法两方面论述了Estate的权益形态。这也是Estate体系中最为核心的几种权益切分方式。其一,时间维度的权益切分,英美法学者称之为物理三维分割之外的第四维,这是英美财产法最基本和最原始的权益切分模式,其将土地上“连绵不断的时间线”进行切分并分配给不同的人,使多人可以同时拥有土地上的不同时间。享受土地上当前时间段者可以取得土地的现实占有,即"Present estate",而享受未来时间段者则在未来某个时间取得占有,即"Future interest".未来权益不仅仅是一种期待,它是一种法定的既得权益,与当前权益有同等的法律地位。这就是英美财产法estate体系最核心的两类权益。根据享有土地上权益的时间长短,当前权益又分为Fee simple, Fee tail,Life estate, Leasehold等,除绝对的Fee simple即完整的“时间线”外,其他的每一种权益的设置都会产生“剩余的时间线”即未来权益。未来权益又分成为受让人而设的和为让与人而设的两大类。其二,共有权益,即同一时间点上的多主体共有,这是与横向时间分割垂直的纵向权益分割模式。共有的传统形态有Tenants in common(普通共有)、Joint tenants (联合共有)等,这些传统形态从土地上发展而来,现今已广泛适用于其他财产形态。共有权益的现代形态主要是从土地上的建筑物尤其是住宅的变化发展而来的,主要适用于住宅的共有所有权形态,如建筑物区分所有、合作公寓、分时度假等,这是依托于Estate时间分割而形成的复杂化的权益构成。其三,衡平法上的Estate。衡平法上的Estate是研究Estate体系不可忽视的重要组成,其主要通过信托的使用而创设。Trust不仅是Use这种财产安排方式的复活,也是衡平法Estate的全面复活,它使得英美财产法的双轨财产体系进一步深化,也使得衡平法理念变得更为成熟,并出现了一系列普通法中并没有对应物的衡平法的Estate Trust这一法律技术的运用,一方面使普通法上创设的Estate体系延伸到衡平法领域,同时也是权益分割的全新维度即功能切分：将占有管理权能同收益权能分离开来分属于不同的权益人。其更为突出的贡献在于将Estate体系适用的范围从土地等Real property拓展到Personal property,尤其是现代价值日益膨胀的无形财产上。Estate最初源生于土地,但随着越来越多的无形财产具有了和土地类似的特性,即相当长时间内产生稳定的收益,并可以随时确定其存在,原本适用于土地上的权益分割技术开始通过信托更广泛地应用于无形财产。这些都凸显了Estate体系的灵活性与现代适应性。Estate、Trust等理念、技术相结合共同构筑了现代财产法上的权益分割模式。Trust作为“英美法最伟大的创造”,也是现今财产规划(Estate Planning)最主要的工具,其充斥于英美财产法的每一个角落,殊值大陆法系国家学习和借鉴。
第六章Estate之当代反思。Estate之优劣得失都在于其特有的灵活性。Estate特有的抽象理念使其可以根据需要“任意裁剪”,此制度积极鼓励新权益的创设,保存和分配财产利益的方式也多样化,具有极大的灵活性,可以适应纷繁多变的经济生活并满足不同的需求。然而,灵活性的实现是以法律制度的高度复杂为代价的。Estate体系的复杂性、易生欺诈性再加上其沉重的历史性等诸多问题的存在,使Estate体系的重构成为必要。英美法国家力图简化Estate体系而进行了多次改革,英国1925年财产法改革取得了显著成效,美国正在进行的第三次财产法重述中也在努力实现这一目标。学理上对Estate的反思更为全面而深入,从Estate这一概念的去留到Estate中内隐的类型法定原则的取舍,从Estate这一典型的“旧瓶新酒”制度对Realty和Personalty的统一适用趋势到法定Estate向衡平Estate的游离及二者的消融等从多角度对Estate的未来趋势进行思考。
余论部分简要论及了对我国的启示。鉴于展示英美财产法制度原态的出发点和体系连贯性的维持,本文没有采用比较研究的方式展开全文的论述,仅在文末抛砖引玉简单论及几点最核心的启示：其一,所有权的新解。笔者提出增加归属权能为所有权权能之组成,或者回复“抽象所有权”的标签含义,以还其作为“权利”的本质。其二,财产观念的重构。我们可以保留传统的所有权制度,但应引入更高层次的财产权概念,对新型财产权则赋予它与所有权、债权平等的地位。其三,财产权益形态的多元化。应当借鉴英美财产法之权益切分模式及相关法律工具,进一步拓展财产的利用方式。其四,对信托这一主要的财产规划工具的深度借鉴。囿于笔力和本文的主题,笔者并没有对这些启示展开论述,只是“浅尝辄止”,试图为我国的财产法改革及后来者提供一个可供参考的视角和思路。
In modern society, we pay more attention to the use of property than its ownership, and there are many new kinds of property appear. In this background, the notion of ownership in civil law can not adapt to the change very well, it happens to bottle-neck. Property law in common law system definitely can be a good reference. Its property law is the law of estate, which is totally different from the law of ownership. For our borrowing, we must know well of the system, which is the aim of this dissertation. In this dissertation, I try to clarify the notion of estate, find the way of thinking, and sort out the system of estate for the aim of giving an original sample for reference.
In this dissertation, there are no institution, no case, just the notion, concept, way of thinking. I focus on the basic concept and development history; give a full introduction on the concept of estate, the origin of the notion, the basic content, the modern development and reform. The dissertation includes three parts, part I Introduction, part II Body, which includes seven chapters; part III Revelation.
In the part of introduction, I give a simple outline for the background and the present institution of the topic. I define the extent of the research, start from the property law but not end of it. The development history of estate is the key line.
Chapter I is a general introduction of property law. I explain the basic notion and the special language system in modern property law, and point out the important position of estate in it. Different from the absolute ownership in civil law, common law pay more attention to the division or split of ownership, but what they split is not the real things but bundle of rights. These kinds of bundle of rights, so-called estate, are the modes of property rights in common law. The system of estates regulates the way of split of ownership, that means what kinds of property right can be created and how to be created are decided by this system. In the development of estate, the common law scholars bring up a very special legal thinking, then they create a series of tools by this thinking, such as notional entity, time-fragment, reification etc. these tools or notions can be applied to every kinds of property, not only the tangible and intangible, but the imagine of people's mind. Estate is historic and varying concept, and is very important to property law.
Chapter II is about the history of estate. We must back to the middle age when we try to explain the origin of estate. The tenure in feudalism is the soil of estate. In the process of subinfeudation to substitution, the system of estates comes to be perfect. The main meaning of tenure is that it divides the interests out of land itself, so these interests can be transferred separately. These kinds of notion become to be the key content of the system of estates.
Chapter III is about the content of estate. Firstly, I give a general definition to the concept of estate, then analysis the process of how these property rights are cut and the use of way of thinking. The basic notion of estate is that ownership does not attach itself to land, but to a notional entity, which can be divided in different ways, such as time, function. After be divided, owners in the land own different bundle of rights, which are all called estates. Then they treat these estates as things in law, in other word, reification. After the fiction, there kinds of things can be divided again, step by step, a mode of calculus appears. We should notice that all these kinds of estate are equal in law, they just stand for the content of interests, not refer to remedy. When they happen to conflict, the concept of title will on the stage.
Chapter IV and V are about legal estates and equitable estates. The two chapters involve three main ways of split of property. First, time-fragment which is beyond the physical dimension is called the fourth dimension. It is the most basic and primitive segmentation model, it cuts "the endless time line "on land to pieces and assigns to different people, so that people can have rights on the land at different times. If can enjoy the land in current time and obtain the possession of the land of reality, it is called present estate. If enjoy the next time period, and can obtain possession at a future time, it is future interest. Future interest is not an expectant right, it is a statutory right, vested right, protected by the court. These two kinds of rights are the core moods of rights in the system of estate. According to the length of time to enjoy the land, the current interest is divided into fee simple, fee tail, life tail, life estate, leasehold, In addition to absolute fee simple, other kinds of rights will have a time remainder when they are set, that is future interest. Future interests are divided into two categories, one for assignee and the other for grantor. Second, concurrent interests, it means people can own the same property in the same time. It has some traditional types, Tenants in common, Joint tenants, etc. these traditional forms evolved from the land, has now been extensively applied to other forms of property. Its modern forms mainly develop from the land, especially residential buildings, such as condominium, cooperative apartments, timesharing, etc. these forms are based on the time fragment but beyond it. Third, Equitable estate, it is an important component of estate system, and can not be ignored. It is created mainly by trust. Use this Trust is not only a revival of the use, which is a way of property arrangement, but also the resurrection of equitable estates, which makes the dual-track system go further. Not only it extends the estates system to the field of equity, but also it is a new dimension of segmentation, function split, that means it separate the power of management and the right to get income to different people. Its prominent contribution is that it extends the scope of estates system from real property to personal property, especially intangible property, such as bonds. Estate was originally born in the land, but as more and more intangible property has a similar feature with land, that is to say, they can exist in quite a long time and generate a stable income, it begin to apply to securities and other intangible property. These are highlights of the flexible and modern adaptation of estates system. Estate, Trust and other concepts combine together to build a modern property law on the rights and interests of time and space. Trust as "the greatest creation of the common law" is the most important tool of estate planning. It is full of every corner of property law, is what we should learn.
Chapter VI is about the contemporary of estate. The advantages and disadvantages of estate are all depends on its unique flexibility. By the abstract concepts, estate can be cut in many ways to meet the needs of life. It encourages the creation of new kinds of rights, and can preserves and distributes the property interests in diverse ways, with great flexibility, so it can be adapted to numerous and varied economic life and meet different needs. However, flexibility is at the cost of highly complex. The complexity coupled with its heavy historical make the reconstruction of estate system to be necessary. These years, Common law countries carry out reforms and seek to simplify the estate system. The property law reforms in1925the United Kingdom made remarkable achievements, the third restatement of property law the United States is also working to achieve this goal. Doctrinal reflection on estate is more comprehensive and in-depth, such as the concept of estate, keep or abandon; numerus clausus, recognize or not; the uniform of realty and personalty; the trend from legal estates to equitable estates, and the ablation of them.
The last part briefly discusses the revelation to property law in China. Considering of the display of property law in common law, and keeping consistency, I do not use the method of comparison, but just give some tips in the last part. First, the new view of ownership. I propose to increase the power of vesting to the composition of ownership, or return the ownership to its "abstract title" tag, treat the tag itself as a "right". Second, reconstruction of the concept of property, I suggest that retain the traditional ownership system, but introduce a higher level, the concept of property rights. Third, diversification of forms of property rights and interests, we should try to borrow the tool of property law in common law countries. Fourth, Trust, the main estate planning tool in common law, is worth for depth reference. For my ability and the limitation of the dissertation, I do not go further in the revelation, just "taste" some ideas, and provide a perspective to later people.
引文
① F.H. Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks at The Civil Law, Uni. of Michigan Law School,1953, p.209.
①参考[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年,第5-10页。
② F. Pollock & F.W. Maitland, the History of English Law before the time of Edward I, Vol.1, Cambridge University Press,1978,p.231.转引自咸鸿昌,《英国土地法律史---以保有权为视角的考察》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第10页。
③参见[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年,第5页。
④ F.H.Lawson, The Rational Strength of English Law, London:Stevens& Sons Ltd.,1951, p.79.
① See Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004), property.
① See Josiah W. Smith, A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property Connected with Conveyancing for the Use of Students and Practitioners, Philadelphia, T. & J.W. Johnson,1856, p.45.
② See Francis Hilliard, American Law of Real Property 3rd, greatly enl. and impr., New York:Banks, Gould & co.; Albany:Gould, Banks & co.,1855, p.1.
① Walter Henry Burton, Elementary Compendium of the Law of Real Property, Philadelphia:J. S. Littell; New York:Halsted and Voorhies,1839, p.1.
② W. Warren, Choses in action,1899, Sweet & MaxWell.
③ William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property, (third edition), St. Paul, Min.,2000, p.11.
④高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第34页。
①[美]罗纳德·波斯顿：《美国财产法的当前发展趋势》载《外国法译评》1994年第3期,第64页。
②See Charles A.Reich,The New Property,73Yale L.J.733,1964.Reich教授的这篇《新型财产》是最早论述财产的新客体的文章,该文引起了学者的广泛关注和评论,并对这一主题进行了更为深入的讨论,如haar和1iebman的Property and Law一书中的新财产一章论述了作为程序的财产、作为合同的财产、作为权力和政治的财产等,描述了宪法、行政法与财产法的交叉领域。See Haar, Liebman,Property and Law 2nd,Indo American Books,2008.
③See Weslev Newcomb Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Annlied in Iudicial Reasoning,26 Yale L.J.710,1917.
④See Restatement of Property,1936-1944,§1-4,p.3-9.
①Joseph William Singer, Introduction to Property, Aspen Publishers,2001, p.290.
① Lord Wilberforce, National Provincial Bank Ltd v. Ainsworth [1965], AC,1175.
② See Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property:The Numerus Clausus Principle,110 Yale L.J.1,2000, p.13-24.
③Hanoch Dagan, The Craft of Property,91 Cal. L. Rev.1517,2003, p.1518.
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968, p.153, note.
② See 73 C.J.S. (Corpus Juris Secundum) Property §43, IV. Ownership, by Richard J. Link, J.D. Database
③ F. H. Lawson and B. Rudden, The Law of Property 2nd, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England,1982, p.114. updated June 2008.
④Am.L.Institution, Rest. Property.5.10.
⑤ F. H. Lawson and B. Rudden, The Law of Property (2nd), Oxford University Press, Oxford,1982, p.113.
⑥ See J. Crossley Vaines, Personal Property 5th ed.1973, E.L.G. Tyler and N.E. Palmer, p.30.
①[法]勒内·达维德：《当代主要法律体系》,上海译文出版社1984年版,转引自冉昊：《比较法视野下的英
美财产法基本构造》,《法学》2005年11期。
② See F.H. Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law, Uni. of Michigan Law School,1953, p.108.
③ See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate,(Variations on a Theme by Lawson),48 Tul. L. Rev.916, June,1974也可见笔者对此文的译作《所有权与地产权》,载于《民商法论丛》第45卷。
① See William B. Stoebuck. Dale A. Whitman, the Law of Propertv 3rd edn. WestGrouD. p.24.
③参见冉昊《论英美财产法中的产权(title)概念及其制度功能》,《法律科学》2006年第5期。
② W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel,3rd ed.,1998, p.53.
④ J.J.S. WILARTON, M.A., Oxon, Principles of Conveyancing:Including Dissertations on I--estate:Both as to Quantity and Quality. II.--Copyholds, Customary Freeholds, and Ancient Demesnes. III. Uses, Trusts, and Powers. IV.--Title:Abstracts of Title, and Registration, T.& J.W.JOHNSON, LAWBOOKSELLERS,1851, P320.
①关于Title的制度功能及在英美裁判中适用请参见冉昊：《论英美财产法中的产权(title)概念及其制度功能》,《法律科学》2006年第5期。
②W.M.L. Burdick, Handbook of the Law of Real Property, West Publishing Co.,1914, p.2.
③ See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (third edition), St. Paul.Minn.,2000, p.1.
④ See A. W. B. Simpon, A History of the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1986, p.88.
①See F. H. Lawson and Bernard Rudden, The Law of Property, Oxford University Press,2002, p.80.
① See 30 A Ill. Law and Prac. Property §12.
② Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968, p.29.
① Robert E. Megarry & M.P. Thompson, A Manual of the Law of Real Property (6th ed. 1993), p.27-28.
② Plucknett, Theodore F.T., A Concise History of the Common Law, The lawyers Co-operative P.C.,1925, p.358.
③ See Cornelius J. Moynihan, Introduction to the Law of Real Property 2nd ed.1988, p.98-99.
① Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for Legislation.85Harv. L. Rev.729, February,1972. p.735
② See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate (Variations on a Theme by Lawson).48Tul. L. Rev.916, June, 1974.
③“当代大陆法系的财产法是改革而非演变的结果。它是基于对惯例法的拒绝和对尤士丁尼的自觉回归。没有黑暗时代的气息,没有封建制度的风味,没有查理曼的香味,也没有李奥纳多的芳香，""It does not smell of the dark ages. It has no flavor of feudalism, no scent of Charlemagne, no aroma of Leonardo." 1." the dark ages"最初指罗马衰败到文艺复兴的整个期间,同“中世纪”有类似起因,寓意新旧时代交替的期间。参见维基百科关于"dark ages"介绍。http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages#cite_note-OED-0。现在"the dark ages"很少在学术中使用,偶尔使用也通常特指中世纪早期。See William Chester Jordon. Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Supplement 1,2004.2. "Charlemagne"西罗马帝国皇帝3"Leonardo"文艺复兴时期的杰出代表。此处的比喻主要说明大陆法是改革的结果,历史的痕迹都被抹去。See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate (Variations on a Theme by Lawson).48Tul. L. Rev.916, June,1974.
④《英国法律史》,第一卷,1页,转引自李红海著：《普通法的历史解读——从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版,第207页。
① Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited 2001.[英]戴安·查佩尔著,《土地法》第五版,朗文·培生法学基础系列·影印本,法律出版社2003年版,见中文导言。
② See Joseph William Singer, Introduction to Property, Aspen Publishers, p.290.
③ See Digby, Kenelm Edward, Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press 1875. Preface VI.
④ See Kate Green, Joe Cursley, Land Law 10th, Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,2001, p.5.
①英美法为何被称为普通法,何谓普通法?这一看似简单的问题在我国的法律教学中似乎并未讲清楚。普通法应是“普遍适用于整个王国疆域的法律”,其根源于诺曼征服后英格兰王国的法律逐渐形成的普遍适用性,这种普遍适用性与大征服前的地方割据、法律分散的局面相对应。参见[英]约翰·哈德森,《英国普通法的形成一从诺曼征服到大宪章时期英格兰的法律与社会》,刘四新译,商务印书馆2006年,译者前言部分。
②参见[法]勒内·达维德,《当代主要法律体系》,漆竹生译,上海译文出版社1984年第一版,295页。
③ John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate,48 Tul. L. Rev., June,1974. p.927.
④ Pollock F, Maitland F. W., History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. vol. I, Cambridge:University Press2nd ed.n,1899, p.229-34.
⑤ Hayes, Introduction to Conveyancing, vol.i, p.9, cited from Cheshire and Burn, Modern Law of Real Property, Butterworths,1933, p.14.
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. I. Cambridge University Press,1895, p.209.
② W.S.Holdsworth, An History Introduction to the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1927, p.90.
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edward1., vol. I. Cambridge University Press,1895, p.211-212.
② See Maitland F. W., The Constitutional History of England, Cambridge University Press,1964, p.143.
①李红海著：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版,第155页。
① J. Crossley Vaines, Personal Property (5th ed.1973), E.L.G Tyler and N.E. Palmer, p.30.
②冉昊：《英美财产法基本构造比较分析》,中国法学网。
③ See Jesse Dukeminier, James E. Krier, Property, Aspen Publishers, Inc., p.199.
① See Pollock F, Maitland F. W., History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. vol. I, Cambridge: University Press,1898,p.371.
① William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L. J.,248,1924, p.251.
② William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L. J.,248,1924, p.251.
③ William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L.J.,248,1924,p.251.
④ William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L.J.,248,1924, p.252.
⑤[美]约翰.E·克里贝特,科温·W·约翰逊等,《财产法：案例与材料》(Property:Cases and Materials)(第七版),齐东祥,陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。第187页。
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. Ⅱ, Cambridge
② Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. Ⅱ, Cambridge University Press,1968. University Press,1968, p.4.
③ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, edited by W. H. Browne, St. Paul:West Publishing Co.,1897, p.174-182.
④ A.W. B. Simpson, A History of the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1986, p.105.
① Thurman Arnold, Criminal Attempts---The Rise and Fall of an Abstraction,40Yale L.J.53,1930, p.58.
② J. Williams, Principles of the Law of Real Property,24th ed, London:Sweet&Maxwell Ltd.,1926, p.527.
①李红海著：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版,第144页。
②咸鸿昌：《英国土地法律史---以保有权为视角的考察》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第128页。
①也有人翻译为《完全保有法》,《封地买卖法》等,参见高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第55页；[美]约翰·G斯普兰克林：《美国财产法精解》(Understanding Property Law)(第二版),钟书峰译,北京大学出版社2009年1月版。第91页。
② William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property(third edition), west group. St. Paul, Minn.,2000. p.8.
③参见陈志坚：《情与理的交锋——英国财产继承研究1200-1800》,博士学位论文2007年5月。
① W.S.Holdsworth, An History Introduction to the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1927, p.52.
②英美财产法的术语习惯,estate通常指present estate, future estate称为future interest,这是依时间对estate的分类,是最初的也是很重要的分类。尤其future interest体系后来获得独立发展,是很重要的死手控制的工具。
③参见[美]约翰·G斯普兰克林：《美国财产法精解》(Understanding Property Law)(第二版),钟书峰译,北京大学出版社2009年1月版,第91页。
①See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, the Law of Property (Third Edition), West Group, p.24.
①2 American Law of Property 8.110 (A. J. Casner ed.1952).
① F.H.Lawson, The Rational Strength of the English Law, London:Stevens,1951, p.79.
② F.H.Lawson, The Rational Strength of the English Law, London:Stevens,1951, p.79.
① Markby, Elements of English Law, p.330,转引自 G.C.Cheshire, The Modern Law of Real Property 10th, Butterworths,1933, p.52.
①See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate,48 Tul. L. Rev., June,1974, p.927.
① Francis Hilliard, American Law of Real Property 3rd, greatly enl. and impr., New York:Banks, Gould & co.; Albany:Gould, Banks & co.,1855, p.1.
①See Wallach v. Van Riswick.92 U.S.202.
②Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited,2001, p.5.
①Kate Green,Joe Cursley,Land Law 10th,Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,2001,p.3.
①李红海：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2003年版,第172页。
① See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (3rd ed.n), St. Paul, Minn.,2000, p.12.
② Helen Cam M., Frederic William Maitland, Selected historical essays, Published in association with the Selden Society at the University Press,1957, p.129.
① Robert J. Hopperton, Teaching Present and Future Interests:A Methodology for Students that Unifies estate in Land Concepts, Structures, and Principles,26 U. Tol. L. Rev.621, p.622.
② Barlow Burke and Joseph A. Snoe, Property (Examples and Explanations), Aspen Publishers, Inc. p.109(中信出版社影印系列)
①有学者认为笼统的说fee simple是最大范围的estate并不合适,而认为fee simple absolute in possession是fee simple的一种,是最大范围的estate.参见高富平,吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第128页。
② See Emory Washburn, John Wurts, A Treatise on the American Law of Real Property, Little, Brown,1902, p.408.
③ Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968, p.10.
① K. E. Digby, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property with Original Authorities,5th ed, London:The Charendon Press,1897, p.224.
②现今,美国的南卡罗莱纳州是现在唯一认可这种土地权益的州。
③当然该法规的内容要远复杂的多,该法出台之后,实践中还出现了很多其他形式的特殊的fee tail,比如fee tail male (限于男性后代继承)等,限于论文主题,不予赘述,详细内容可参见咸鸿昌,《英国土地法律史---以保有权为视角的考察》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第160-172。
④ Jesse Dukeminier, James E. Krier, Property, Aspen Publishers, Inc., p.218.
① Rule against perpetuities:The common-law rule prohibiting a grant of an estate unless the interest must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years (plus a period of gestation to cover a posthumous birth) after the death of some person alive when the interest was created. The purpose of the rule was to limit the time that title to property could be suspended out of commerce because there was no owner who had title to the property and who could sell it or exercise other aspects of ownership. If the terms of the contract or gift exceeded the time limits of the rule, the gift or transaction was void.See Roger Bernhardt, Real Property,3rd ed., St. Paul, Minn, West Publishing Co.,1993, p.66.
① Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law, Boston:Little, Brown and Company 5th ed.1956, p.570-74.
②这是传统的理论定位。从某方面来讲,一些结果起因于租赁的严格性,因为一些州一定程度上规避了财产的转让。See American Law of Property § 3.11 (A Casner ed.1952) and authorities cited therein.
③高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第271页。
①高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第245页。
① See W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel, 3rd ed.,1998, p.576.
② See 15Am. Jur.2nd, Condominiums, etc. §1.
③ See 31 C.J.S. estate § 234 Nature of Condominium and Ownership thereof.
④ See Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004), planned-unit development.
⑤ See Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer & Thomas E. Roberts, Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law, §7.15,2003, p.288.
① W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel,3rd ed.,1998, p.576.
② CONDO FL-CLE 6-1
③ Ellen H. Pollack, Time-Sharing, or Time is Money but Will It Sell? 10 Real Est. L. J.281,1982, p.283.
④ 31 C.J.S. estate §302
⑤ See 10 Com. Real Estate Forms 3d § 27:12, Stuart M. Saft.
⑥ CONDO FL-CLE 6-1
① See David A. Bowen, Timeshare ownership:regulation and common sense,18Loy, Consumer L. Rev.459, p.465-467.
② See Ralph E. Stone, The Federal Trade Commission and Timeshare Resale Companies,24 Suffolk U. L. Rev, 49,p.51.
③ David R. Duhord, Time-Share Condominiums:Property's Fourth Dimension, Me. L. Rev.181,1980, p.186-87.
① Per Lord Hardwicke, C., Willett v. Stanford,1 Vez.186. Cited from Crabb, George, Law of Real Property, in Its Present State; Practically Arranged and Digested in All Its Branches, Including the Very Latest Decisions of the Courts, Collection Resources 2,1846, p.283.
① Carly Howard, Trust Funds in Common Law and Civil Law Systems:A Comparative Analysis, University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review,2006, p.348.
②余辉在其《英国信托法：起源、发展及其影响》中对此有详尽论述。参见余辉：《英国信托法：起源、发展及其影响》,清华大学出版社2007版,第19-33页。
③ Emory Washburn, John Wurts, A Treatise on the American Law of Real Property, Little, Brown,1902, p.408.
④ Carly Howard, Trust Funds in Common Law and Civil Law Systems:A Comparative Analysis, University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review,2006, p.348-350.
①J.H.Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History,2nd ed., Edinburgh:Butterworht & Co.,1990, p.330.
① See Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher. The Law of Trusts §2.4.4th ed.1987. p.42.
② See Tony Honore, The South African Law of Trusts §§ 1-2 (3rd ed.1985), p.1-3.
①[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著：《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年,第184页。
①Holmes, The Common Law, New York, Brown and Company,1881, p.137.转引自何勤华主编：《美国法律发达史》,上海人民出版社1998年版,第200页。
②参见[英]F.H.劳森B.拉登著：《财产法》(第二版),中国大百科全书出版社,第15页。
① See Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for Legislation,85 Harvard Law Review 729 (1972), p.731.
① Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited 2001[英]戴安·查佩尔著：《土地法》第五版,朗文·培生法学基础系列·影印本,法律出版社2003年版,见中文导言。
② F. H. Lawson, Introduction to the Law of Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press, (1958), p.87.
① See Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited 2001, p.7.
②赵廉慧学者在其财产权的概念—书中对对人权、对物权等概念进行了深入的分析。参见赵廉慧：《财产权的概念——从契约的视角分析》,知识产权出版社2005年版,第32-54页。
① Myres S. McDougal, Future Interests Restated:Tradition versus Clarification and Reform,55 Harv. L. Rev. 1077,1942, p.1115.
② See Lewis M. Simes, Fifty Years of Future Interests,50 Harv. L. Rev.749,1937, p.783.
① W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel,3rd ed.,1998, p.97.
② Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of Law,10 Harv. L.-Rev.457,1897, p.469.
③ Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for Legislation,85Harv. L. Rev.729, 1972, p.735.
④ See Restatement (Third) of Prop.:Wills and Other Donative Transfers §§ 24.1 cmt.,24.2 cmt. (Preliminary Draft No.12,2007.财产法第三次重述中部分论及了estates体系中术语的历史来源及于英国封建土地制度的联系。
① See John HenrY Merrvman. Ownership and Estate,48 Tul. L. Rev.916, June,1974. P.918.
② See F.H. Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law, Uni. of Michigan Law School,1953, p.205.
③ F. H. Lawson, Introduction to the Law of Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press, (1958), p.87.
①Gray, Elements of Land Law,2nd ed.,1999, p.45.
②See Johnson v. Whiton,34 N.E.542,542 (Mass.1893).
①Jesse Dukeminier, E.Krier,Property,Aspen Publishers,Inc.,p.218.
① Bernard Rudden, Economic Theory v. Property Law:The Numerus Clausus Problem, in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence:Third Series, p.239,241 (John Eekelaar & John Bell eds.,1987).
① See Olin L. Browder, Jr., Trusts and the Doctrine of estate.72 Mich. L. Rev.1507,1974,1522.
② See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (third edition), St. Paul,Minn.,2000, p.12.
③ Mgarrry and Thompson, Mgarrry's Manual of the Law of Real Property,7th edition,1993, p.57.转引自赵廉慧著：《财产权的概念---从契约的视角分析》,知识产权出版社2005年版,第41页。
①See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (third edition), St. Paul, Minn.,2000.p.14.
①参见秦伟、杨占勇：《论所有权及其权能分离的双向性》,《东岳论丛》,2001年第4期。
①其实使用大陆法系是不准确的,因为大陆法系各国立法各有差异,这里特指以德国为代表的典型大陆法系。
②参见王利明：《物权法论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第20页。当然,还有其他学者从别的视角对财产进行界定。
③“无权利、无救济”这一大陆法系的公理使确权成为大陆法首当其冲的任务。只不过定型化的物权、债权二元体系使所有权的客体只能是有体物,而债权这一无形财产因其特殊的重要性被独立出来和物权相提并论,除知识产权单独立法外,大量的无形财产仍游离于法典之外。因权利之上的权利不符合我们的语法习惯,因此在日常生活中我们没有将无形财产与无形财产权区分表述。但毫无疑问这一区别已经是被认可的。
④参见易继明：《财产、财产权及其哲学基础》,《中日民商法研究》(第三卷),法律出版社2005年版,第29页。
⑤参见[美]理查德·A波斯纳著,蒋兆康译,林毅夫校：《法律的经济分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年第1版,第47页。
⑥佟柔：《中国民法学·民法总则》,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年版,第193页。
①参见[英]F.H.劳森B.拉登著：《财产法》(第二版),中国大百科全书出版社,第15页。
①黄秀清主编：《现代租赁经济理论与实务》,中华工商联合出版社,2000年版。
②F.H.Lawson & B.Rudden, The Law of Property, (second edition), Oxford, England,1982, p.76.
① Merryman, Toward a Comparative Study of the Sale of Land,2Ius Privatum Gentium:Festschrift fur Max Rheinstein,1969, p.737.
② See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate (Variations on a Theme by Lawson),48 Tul. L. Rev.916, 1974, p.920.
①黄迪：《财产权体系问题之反思》,南昌大学硕士学位论文,2007年11月。
②马俊驹、梅夏英：《财产权制度的历史评析与现实思考》,《中国社会科学》,1999年,第90-105页。
1,梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》,法律出版社2007年版。
2.王利明：《物权法论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
3.高富平、吴一鸣：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版。
4.陈永强：《英美法上的交易自治与交易安全—以房土地交易法为视角》,法律出版社2009年版。
5.余辉：《英国信托法：起源、发展及其影响》,清华大学出版社2007年版。
6.赵廉慧：《财产权的概念---从契约的视角分析》,知识产权出版社2005年版。
7.佟柔：《中国民法学·民法总则》,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年版。
8.谢在全：《民法物权论》(上),中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
9.梁慧星：《民法总则》,法律出版社1996年版。
10.陈华彬：《物权法原理》,国家行政学院出版社1998年版。
11.郭建：《中国财产法史稿》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
12.何勤华主编：《美国法律发达史》,上海人民出版社1998年版。
13.李红海：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版。
14.李培锋：《英美信托财产权难以融入大陆法物权体系的根源》,《环球法律评论》2009年第5期。
15.马俊驹、梅夏英：“财产权制度的历史评析与现实思考”,载《中国社会科学》1999年第1期。
16.冉昊： “论英美财产法中的产权(title)概念及其制度功能”,载《法律科学》2006年第5期。
17.冉昊：《比较法视野下的英美财产法基本构造》,载《法学》2005年11期。
18.孙新强：《大陆法对英美法上L IEN制度的误解及L IEN的本意探源》,载《比较法研究》2009年第1期。
19.秦伟、杨占勇：《论所有权及其权能分离的双向性》,载《东岳论丛》,2001年第4期。
20.易继明：《财产、财产权及其哲学基础》,载《中日民商法研究》(第三卷),法律出版社2005年版。
21.刘保玉：《中国物权法的成就与不足——兼及法律移植与融合中的“鸡尾酒论”》,载《法学论坛》2008年第5期。
22.《法学大辞典》,中国政法大学出版社1991年版。
1.[法]勒内·达维德：《当代主要法律体系》,上海译文出版社1984年版。
2.[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年版。
3.[美]罗纳德波斯顿：《美国财产法的当前发展趋势》载《外国法译评》1994年第3期。
4.[德]K.茨威格特、H.克茨：《比较法总论》,潘汉典、米健等译,法律出版社2003年版。
5.[德]拉德布鲁赫著：《法学导论》,米健、朱林等译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
6.[美]理查德·A波斯纳著,蒋兆康译,林毅夫校：《法律的经济分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年6月第1版。
7.[日]我妻荣著：《债权在近代法中的优越地位》,王书江、张雷译,中国大百科全书出版社1999年版。
8.[英]戴安·查佩尔著,《土地法》第五版,朗文·培生法学基础系列·影印本,法律出版社2003年版。
9.[美]约翰·E·克里贝特,科温·W·约翰逊等,《财产法：案例与材料》(Property:Cases and Materials)(第七版),齐东祥,陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
10.[英]约翰·哈德森：《英国普通法的形成—从诺曼征服到大宪章时期英格兰的法律与社会》,刘四新译,商务印书馆2006年版。
11.[美]约翰·G.斯普兰克林,《美国财产法精解》(Understanding Property Law)(第二版),钟书峰译,北京大学出版社2009年1月版。
12.[德]H.科殷：《法哲学》,林荣远译,华夏出版社2002年版。
1. Boone, Charles Theodore, Manual of the Law of Real Property, San Francisco: S. Whitney & Co.,1883.
2. Bernard Rudden, Economic Theory v. Property Law:The Numerus Clausus Problem, in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence:Third Series (John Eekelaar & John Bell eds.,1987.
3. C. R. Noyes, The Institution of Property:A Study of Development, Substance and Arrangement of the System of Property in Modern Anglo-American Law, New York:Longmans, Green & Co.,1936. Cornelius J. Moynihan, Introduction to the Law of Real Property2nd ed.,1988.
4. Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited,2001.
5. Digby, Kenelm Edward, Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1875.
6. F. H. Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks At The Civil Law, Uni. of Michigan Law School,1953.
7. F. H. Lawson, Introduction to the Law of Property,1958.
8. F. H. Lawson and B. Rudden, The Law of Property 2nd, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England,1982.
9. Francis Hilliard, American Law of Real Property 3rd end, greatly enl. and imp., New York:Banks, Gould & co.; Albany:Gould, Banks & co.,1855.
10. Pollock F, Maitland F.W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968.
11. Gray, Elements of Land Law,2nd edn,1999.
12. G. C. Cheshire, Modern Law of Real Property 3rd edn,1933.
13. Levis Simes, American Law of Property,1952.
14. Holmes, The Common Law, New York, Brown and Company,1881.
15. Josiah W. Smith, A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property Connected with Conveyancing for the Use of Students and Practitioners, Philadelphia, T. & J.W.Johnson,1856.
16. Joseph William Singer, Introduction to Property, Aspen Publishers.
17. John G. Sprankling, Understanding the Property Law, LexisNexis.
18. J. J. S. Wiiarton, Oxon, Principles of Conveyancing:Including Dissertations on I.--estate:Both as to Quantity and Quality. Ⅱ.--Copyholds, Customary Freeholds, and Ancient Demesnes. III. Uses, Trusts, and Powers. IV.--Title:Abstracts of Title, and Registration, T. & J.W.Jonson, Law booksellers,1851.
19. Kate Green, Joe Cursley, Land Law(10th), Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,2001.
20. Plucknett, Theodore F. T., A Concise History of the Common Law, The lawyers Co-operative P.C.,1925.
21. Robert E. Megarry & M. P. Thompson, A Manual of the Law of Real Property,6th edn,1993.
22. William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property,3rd edn, St. Paul, Minn.,2000.
23. W. T. Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet & Maxwell 3rd edn,1998.
24. W. M. L. Burdick, Handbook of the Law of Real Property, West Publishing Co.,1914.
25. Walter Henry Burton, Elementary Compendium of the Law of Real Property, Philadelphia:J. S. Littell; New York:Halsted and Voorhies,1839.
26. W. Warren, Choses in action,1899, Sweet & Max Well.
1. Charles A. Reich, The New Property,73 Yale L. J.733,1964.
2. C. M. A. McCauliff, The Medieval Origin of the Doctrine of estate in Land: Substantive Property Law, Family Considerations, and the Interests of Women, Tulane Law Review, March,1992.
3. Carly Howard, Trust Funds in Common Law and Civil Law Systems:A Comparative Analysis, University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review,2006.
4. David R. Duhord, Time-Share Condominiums:Property's Fourth Dimension, Me. L. Rev.,1980.
5. D. Benjamin Barros, Toward a Model Law of Estate and Future Interests, Washington and Lee Law Review,2009.
6. Ellen H. Pollack, Time-Sharing, or Time is Money, But Will it Sell? 10 Real Est. L. J.281,1982. 7. Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for
Legislation,85 Harv. L. Rev.729,1972. 8. Hanoch Dagan, The Craft of Property,91 Cal. L. Rev.1517,2003.
9. John E. Cribbet, Concepts in Transition:The Search for a New Definition of
Property, U.111. L. Rev.,1986. 10. Myres S. McDougal, Future Interests Restated:Tradition versus Clarification
and Reform,55 Harv. L. Rev.,1077,1942. 11. Olin L. Browder, Jr., Trusts and the Doctrine of estate,72Mich. L. Rev.1507,
1974. 12. Quoted in Thurman Arnold, Criminal Attempts---The Rise and Fall of an
Abstraction,40Yale L.J.53,1930. 13. Ralph E. Stone, The Federal Trade Commission and Timeshare Resale
Companies,24 Suffolk U. L. Rev.49. 14. Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law
of Property:The Numerus Clausus Principle,110 Yale L.J.1,2000.
15. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,26 Yale L.J.710,1917.
16. William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L. J.248, January.
17. Johnson v. Whiton,34 N.E.542, Mass.1893.
18. Lord Wilberforce, National Provincial Bank Ltd v. Ainsworth [1965], AC,
19. Carrier v. Crestar Bank,561 A.2d 227, Md.1989. 20. Am. L. Institution
21. Black's Law Dictionary,8th edn,2004.
22. C.J.S. Property (Corpus Juris Secundum)
23. FL-CLE (Florida Condominium and Community Association Law)
24. Am. Jur. (American Jurisprudence) 25. Cal. Civ. Code
26. N.Y. Est. Powers & Trust L.
①参考[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年,第5-10页。
② F. Pollock & F.W. Maitland, the History of English Law before the time of Edward I, Vol.1, Cambridge University Press,1978,p.231.转引自咸鸿昌,《英国土地法律史---以保有权为视角的考察》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第10页。
③参见[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年,第5页。
④ F.H.Lawson, The Rational Strength of English Law, London:Stevens& Sons Ltd.,1951, p.79.
① See Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004), property.
① See Josiah W. Smith, A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property Connected with Conveyancing for the Use of Students and Practitioners, Philadelphia, T. & J.W. Johnson,1856, p.45.
② See Francis Hilliard, American Law of Real Property 3rd, greatly enl. and impr., New York:Banks, Gould & co.; Albany:Gould, Banks & co.,1855, p.1.
① Walter Henry Burton, Elementary Compendium of the Law of Real Property, Philadelphia:J. S. Littell; New York:Halsted and Voorhies,1839, p.1.
② W. Warren, Choses in action,1899, Sweet & MaxWell.
③ William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property, (third edition), St. Paul, Min.,2000, p.11.
④高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第34页。
①[美]罗纳德·波斯顿：《美国财产法的当前发展趋势》载《外国法译评》1994年第3期,第64页。
②See Charles A.Reich,The New Property,73Yale L.J.733,1964.Reich教授的这篇《新型财产》是最早论述财产的新客体的文章,该文引起了学者的广泛关注和评论,并对这一主题进行了更为深入的讨论,如haar和1iebman的Property and Law一书中的新财产一章论述了作为程序的财产、作为合同的财产、作为权力和政治的财产等,描述了宪法、行政法与财产法的交叉领域。See Haar, Liebman,Property and Law 2nd,Indo American Books,2008.
③See Weslev Newcomb Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Annlied in Iudicial Reasoning,26 Yale L.J.710,1917.
④See Restatement of Property,1936-1944,§1-4,p.3-9.
①Joseph William Singer, Introduction to Property, Aspen Publishers,2001, p.290.
① Lord Wilberforce, National Provincial Bank Ltd v. Ainsworth [1965], AC,1175.
② See Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property:The Numerus Clausus Principle,110 Yale L.J.1,2000, p.13-24.
③Hanoch Dagan, The Craft of Property,91 Cal. L. Rev.1517,2003, p.1518.
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968, p.153, note.
② See 73 C.J.S. (Corpus Juris Secundum) Property §43, IV. Ownership, by Richard J. Link, J.D. Database
③ F. H. Lawson and B. Rudden, The Law of Property 2nd, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England,1982, p.114. updated June 2008.
④Am.L.Institution, Rest. Property.5.10.
⑤ F. H. Lawson and B. Rudden, The Law of Property (2nd), Oxford University Press, Oxford,1982, p.113.
⑥ See J. Crossley Vaines, Personal Property 5th ed.1973, E.L.G. Tyler and N.E. Palmer, p.30.
①[法]勒内·达维德：《当代主要法律体系》,上海译文出版社1984年版,转引自冉昊：《比较法视野下的英
美财产法基本构造》,《法学》2005年11期。
② See F.H. Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law, Uni. of Michigan Law School,1953, p.108.
③ See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate,(Variations on a Theme by Lawson),48 Tul. L. Rev.916, June,1974也可见笔者对此文的译作《所有权与地产权》,载于《民商法论丛》第45卷。
① See William B. Stoebuck. Dale A. Whitman, the Law of Propertv 3rd edn. WestGrouD. p.24.
③参见冉昊《论英美财产法中的产权(title)概念及其制度功能》,《法律科学》2006年第5期。
② W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel,3rd ed.,1998, p.53.
④ J.J.S. WILARTON, M.A., Oxon, Principles of Conveyancing:Including Dissertations on I--estate:Both as to Quantity and Quality. II.--Copyholds, Customary Freeholds, and Ancient Demesnes. III. Uses, Trusts, and Powers. IV.--Title:Abstracts of Title, and Registration, T.& J.W.JOHNSON, LAWBOOKSELLERS,1851, P320.
①关于Title的制度功能及在英美裁判中适用请参见冉昊：《论英美财产法中的产权(title)概念及其制度功能》,《法律科学》2006年第5期。
②W.M.L. Burdick, Handbook of the Law of Real Property, West Publishing Co.,1914, p.2.
③ See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (third edition), St. Paul.Minn.,2000, p.1.
④ See A. W. B. Simpon, A History of the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1986, p.88.
①See F. H. Lawson and Bernard Rudden, The Law of Property, Oxford University Press,2002, p.80.
① See 30 A Ill. Law and Prac. Property §12.
② Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968, p.29.
① Robert E. Megarry & M.P. Thompson, A Manual of the Law of Real Property (6th ed. 1993), p.27-28.
② Plucknett, Theodore F.T., A Concise History of the Common Law, The lawyers Co-operative P.C.,1925, p.358.
③ See Cornelius J. Moynihan, Introduction to the Law of Real Property 2nd ed.1988, p.98-99.
① Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for Legislation.85Harv. L. Rev.729, February,1972. p.735
② See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate (Variations on a Theme by Lawson).48Tul. L. Rev.916, June, 1974.
③“当代大陆法系的财产法是改革而非演变的结果。它是基于对惯例法的拒绝和对尤士丁尼的自觉回归。没有黑暗时代的气息,没有封建制度的风味,没有查理曼的香味,也没有李奥纳多的芳香，""It does not smell of the dark ages. It has no flavor of feudalism, no scent of Charlemagne, no aroma of Leonardo." 1." the dark ages"最初指罗马衰败到文艺复兴的整个期间,同“中世纪”有类似起因,寓意新旧时代交替的期间。参见维基百科关于"dark ages"介绍。http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages#cite_note-OED-0。现在"the dark ages"很少在学术中使用,偶尔使用也通常特指中世纪早期。See William Chester Jordon. Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Supplement 1,2004.2. "Charlemagne"西罗马帝国皇帝3"Leonardo"文艺复兴时期的杰出代表。此处的比喻主要说明大陆法是改革的结果,历史的痕迹都被抹去。See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate (Variations on a Theme by Lawson).48Tul. L. Rev.916, June,1974.
④《英国法律史》,第一卷,1页,转引自李红海著：《普通法的历史解读——从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版,第207页。
① Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited 2001.[英]戴安·查佩尔著,《土地法》第五版,朗文·培生法学基础系列·影印本,法律出版社2003年版,见中文导言。
② See Joseph William Singer, Introduction to Property, Aspen Publishers, p.290.
③ See Digby, Kenelm Edward, Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press 1875. Preface VI.
④ See Kate Green, Joe Cursley, Land Law 10th, Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,2001, p.5.
①英美法为何被称为普通法,何谓普通法?这一看似简单的问题在我国的法律教学中似乎并未讲清楚。普通法应是“普遍适用于整个王国疆域的法律”,其根源于诺曼征服后英格兰王国的法律逐渐形成的普遍适用性,这种普遍适用性与大征服前的地方割据、法律分散的局面相对应。参见[英]约翰·哈德森,《英国普通法的形成一从诺曼征服到大宪章时期英格兰的法律与社会》,刘四新译,商务印书馆2006年,译者前言部分。
②参见[法]勒内·达维德,《当代主要法律体系》,漆竹生译,上海译文出版社1984年第一版,295页。
③ John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate,48 Tul. L. Rev., June,1974. p.927.
④ Pollock F, Maitland F. W., History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. vol. I, Cambridge:University Press2nd ed.n,1899, p.229-34.
⑤ Hayes, Introduction to Conveyancing, vol.i, p.9, cited from Cheshire and Burn, Modern Law of Real Property, Butterworths,1933, p.14.
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. I. Cambridge University Press,1895, p.209.
② W.S.Holdsworth, An History Introduction to the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1927, p.90.
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edward1., vol. I. Cambridge University Press,1895, p.211-212.
② See Maitland F. W., The Constitutional History of England, Cambridge University Press,1964, p.143.
①李红海著：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版,第155页。
① J. Crossley Vaines, Personal Property (5th ed.1973), E.L.G Tyler and N.E. Palmer, p.30.
②冉昊：《英美财产法基本构造比较分析》,中国法学网。
③ See Jesse Dukeminier, James E. Krier, Property, Aspen Publishers, Inc., p.199.
① See Pollock F, Maitland F. W., History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. vol. I, Cambridge: University Press,1898,p.371.
① William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L. J.,248,1924, p.251.
② William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L. J.,248,1924, p.251.
③ William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L.J.,248,1924,p.251.
④ William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L.J.,248,1924, p.252.
⑤[美]约翰.E·克里贝特,科温·W·约翰逊等,《财产法：案例与材料》(Property:Cases and Materials)(第七版),齐东祥,陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。第187页。
① Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. Ⅱ, Cambridge
② Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. Ⅱ, Cambridge University Press,1968. University Press,1968, p.4.
③ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, edited by W. H. Browne, St. Paul:West Publishing Co.,1897, p.174-182.
④ A.W. B. Simpson, A History of the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1986, p.105.
① Thurman Arnold, Criminal Attempts---The Rise and Fall of an Abstraction,40Yale L.J.53,1930, p.58.
② J. Williams, Principles of the Law of Real Property,24th ed, London:Sweet&Maxwell Ltd.,1926, p.527.
①李红海著：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版,第144页。
②咸鸿昌：《英国土地法律史---以保有权为视角的考察》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第128页。
①也有人翻译为《完全保有法》,《封地买卖法》等,参见高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第55页；[美]约翰·G斯普兰克林：《美国财产法精解》(Understanding Property Law)(第二版),钟书峰译,北京大学出版社2009年1月版。第91页。
② William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property(third edition), west group. St. Paul, Minn.,2000. p.8.
③参见陈志坚：《情与理的交锋——英国财产继承研究1200-1800》,博士学位论文2007年5月。
① W.S.Holdsworth, An History Introduction to the Land Law, Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1927, p.52.
②英美财产法的术语习惯,estate通常指present estate, future estate称为future interest,这是依时间对estate的分类,是最初的也是很重要的分类。尤其future interest体系后来获得独立发展,是很重要的死手控制的工具。
③参见[美]约翰·G斯普兰克林：《美国财产法精解》(Understanding Property Law)(第二版),钟书峰译,北京大学出版社2009年1月版,第91页。
①See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, the Law of Property (Third Edition), West Group, p.24.
①2 American Law of Property 8.110 (A. J. Casner ed.1952).
① F.H.Lawson, The Rational Strength of the English Law, London:Stevens,1951, p.79.
② F.H.Lawson, The Rational Strength of the English Law, London:Stevens,1951, p.79.
① Markby, Elements of English Law, p.330,转引自 G.C.Cheshire, The Modern Law of Real Property 10th, Butterworths,1933, p.52.
①See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate,48 Tul. L. Rev., June,1974, p.927.
① Francis Hilliard, American Law of Real Property 3rd, greatly enl. and impr., New York:Banks, Gould & co.; Albany:Gould, Banks & co.,1855, p.1.
①See Wallach v. Van Riswick.92 U.S.202.
②Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited,2001, p.5.
①Kate Green,Joe Cursley,Land Law 10th,Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,2001,p.3.
①李红海：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2003年版,第172页。
① See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (3rd ed.n), St. Paul, Minn.,2000, p.12.
② Helen Cam M., Frederic William Maitland, Selected historical essays, Published in association with the Selden Society at the University Press,1957, p.129.
① Robert J. Hopperton, Teaching Present and Future Interests:A Methodology for Students that Unifies estate in Land Concepts, Structures, and Principles,26 U. Tol. L. Rev.621, p.622.
② Barlow Burke and Joseph A. Snoe, Property (Examples and Explanations), Aspen Publishers, Inc. p.109(中信出版社影印系列)
①有学者认为笼统的说fee simple是最大范围的estate并不合适,而认为fee simple absolute in possession是fee simple的一种,是最大范围的estate.参见高富平,吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第128页。
② See Emory Washburn, John Wurts, A Treatise on the American Law of Real Property, Little, Brown,1902, p.408.
③ Pollock F, Maitland F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968, p.10.
① K. E. Digby, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property with Original Authorities,5th ed, London:The Charendon Press,1897, p.224.
②现今,美国的南卡罗莱纳州是现在唯一认可这种土地权益的州。
③当然该法规的内容要远复杂的多,该法出台之后,实践中还出现了很多其他形式的特殊的fee tail,比如fee tail male (限于男性后代继承)等,限于论文主题,不予赘述,详细内容可参见咸鸿昌,《英国土地法律史---以保有权为视角的考察》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第160-172。
④ Jesse Dukeminier, James E. Krier, Property, Aspen Publishers, Inc., p.218.
① Rule against perpetuities:The common-law rule prohibiting a grant of an estate unless the interest must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years (plus a period of gestation to cover a posthumous birth) after the death of some person alive when the interest was created. The purpose of the rule was to limit the time that title to property could be suspended out of commerce because there was no owner who had title to the property and who could sell it or exercise other aspects of ownership. If the terms of the contract or gift exceeded the time limits of the rule, the gift or transaction was void.See Roger Bernhardt, Real Property,3rd ed., St. Paul, Minn, West Publishing Co.,1993, p.66.
① Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law, Boston:Little, Brown and Company 5th ed.1956, p.570-74.
②这是传统的理论定位。从某方面来讲,一些结果起因于租赁的严格性,因为一些州一定程度上规避了财产的转让。See American Law of Property § 3.11 (A Casner ed.1952) and authorities cited therein.
③高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第271页。
①高富平、吴一鸣著：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版,第245页。
① See W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel, 3rd ed.,1998, p.576.
② See 15Am. Jur.2nd, Condominiums, etc. §1.
③ See 31 C.J.S. estate § 234 Nature of Condominium and Ownership thereof.
④ See Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004), planned-unit development.
⑤ See Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer & Thomas E. Roberts, Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law, §7.15,2003, p.288.
① W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel,3rd ed.,1998, p.576.
② CONDO FL-CLE 6-1
③ Ellen H. Pollack, Time-Sharing, or Time is Money but Will It Sell? 10 Real Est. L. J.281,1982, p.283.
④ 31 C.J.S. estate §302
⑤ See 10 Com. Real Estate Forms 3d § 27:12, Stuart M. Saft.
⑥ CONDO FL-CLE 6-1
① See David A. Bowen, Timeshare ownership:regulation and common sense,18Loy, Consumer L. Rev.459, p.465-467.
② See Ralph E. Stone, The Federal Trade Commission and Timeshare Resale Companies,24 Suffolk U. L. Rev, 49,p.51.
③ David R. Duhord, Time-Share Condominiums:Property's Fourth Dimension, Me. L. Rev.181,1980, p.186-87.
① Per Lord Hardwicke, C., Willett v. Stanford,1 Vez.186. Cited from Crabb, George, Law of Real Property, in Its Present State; Practically Arranged and Digested in All Its Branches, Including the Very Latest Decisions of the Courts, Collection Resources 2,1846, p.283.
① Carly Howard, Trust Funds in Common Law and Civil Law Systems:A Comparative Analysis, University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review,2006, p.348.
②余辉在其《英国信托法：起源、发展及其影响》中对此有详尽论述。参见余辉：《英国信托法：起源、发展及其影响》,清华大学出版社2007版,第19-33页。
③ Emory Washburn, John Wurts, A Treatise on the American Law of Real Property, Little, Brown,1902, p.408.
④ Carly Howard, Trust Funds in Common Law and Civil Law Systems:A Comparative Analysis, University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review,2006, p.348-350.
①J.H.Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History,2nd ed., Edinburgh:Butterworht & Co.,1990, p.330.
① See Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher. The Law of Trusts §2.4.4th ed.1987. p.42.
② See Tony Honore, The South African Law of Trusts §§ 1-2 (3rd ed.1985), p.1-3.
①[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著：《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年,第184页。
①Holmes, The Common Law, New York, Brown and Company,1881, p.137.转引自何勤华主编：《美国法律发达史》,上海人民出版社1998年版,第200页。
②参见[英]F.H.劳森B.拉登著：《财产法》(第二版),中国大百科全书出版社,第15页。
① See Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for Legislation,85 Harvard Law Review 729 (1972), p.731.
① Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited 2001[英]戴安·查佩尔著：《土地法》第五版,朗文·培生法学基础系列·影印本,法律出版社2003年版,见中文导言。
② F. H. Lawson, Introduction to the Law of Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press, (1958), p.87.
① See Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited 2001, p.7.
②赵廉慧学者在其财产权的概念—书中对对人权、对物权等概念进行了深入的分析。参见赵廉慧：《财产权的概念——从契约的视角分析》,知识产权出版社2005年版,第32-54页。
① Myres S. McDougal, Future Interests Restated:Tradition versus Clarification and Reform,55 Harv. L. Rev. 1077,1942, p.1115.
② See Lewis M. Simes, Fifty Years of Future Interests,50 Harv. L. Rev.749,1937, p.783.
① W. T.Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet&Maxwel,3rd ed.,1998, p.97.
② Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of Law,10 Harv. L.-Rev.457,1897, p.469.
③ Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for Legislation,85Harv. L. Rev.729, 1972, p.735.
④ See Restatement (Third) of Prop.:Wills and Other Donative Transfers §§ 24.1 cmt.,24.2 cmt. (Preliminary Draft No.12,2007.财产法第三次重述中部分论及了estates体系中术语的历史来源及于英国封建土地制度的联系。
① See John HenrY Merrvman. Ownership and Estate,48 Tul. L. Rev.916, June,1974. P.918.
② See F.H. Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law, Uni. of Michigan Law School,1953, p.205.
③ F. H. Lawson, Introduction to the Law of Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press, (1958), p.87.
①Gray, Elements of Land Law,2nd ed.,1999, p.45.
②See Johnson v. Whiton,34 N.E.542,542 (Mass.1893).
①Jesse Dukeminier, E.Krier,Property,Aspen Publishers,Inc.,p.218.
① Bernard Rudden, Economic Theory v. Property Law:The Numerus Clausus Problem, in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence:Third Series, p.239,241 (John Eekelaar & John Bell eds.,1987).
① See Olin L. Browder, Jr., Trusts and the Doctrine of estate.72 Mich. L. Rev.1507,1974,1522.
② See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (third edition), St. Paul,Minn.,2000, p.12.
③ Mgarrry and Thompson, Mgarrry's Manual of the Law of Real Property,7th edition,1993, p.57.转引自赵廉慧著：《财产权的概念---从契约的视角分析》,知识产权出版社2005年版,第41页。
①See William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property (third edition), St. Paul, Minn.,2000.p.14.
①参见秦伟、杨占勇：《论所有权及其权能分离的双向性》,《东岳论丛》,2001年第4期。
①其实使用大陆法系是不准确的,因为大陆法系各国立法各有差异,这里特指以德国为代表的典型大陆法系。
②参见王利明：《物权法论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第20页。当然,还有其他学者从别的视角对财产进行界定。
③“无权利、无救济”这一大陆法系的公理使确权成为大陆法首当其冲的任务。只不过定型化的物权、债权二元体系使所有权的客体只能是有体物,而债权这一无形财产因其特殊的重要性被独立出来和物权相提并论,除知识产权单独立法外,大量的无形财产仍游离于法典之外。因权利之上的权利不符合我们的语法习惯,因此在日常生活中我们没有将无形财产与无形财产权区分表述。但毫无疑问这一区别已经是被认可的。
④参见易继明：《财产、财产权及其哲学基础》,《中日民商法研究》(第三卷),法律出版社2005年版,第29页。
⑤参见[美]理查德·A波斯纳著,蒋兆康译,林毅夫校：《法律的经济分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年第1版,第47页。
⑥佟柔：《中国民法学·民法总则》,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年版,第193页。
①参见[英]F.H.劳森B.拉登著：《财产法》(第二版),中国大百科全书出版社,第15页。
①黄秀清主编：《现代租赁经济理论与实务》,中华工商联合出版社,2000年版。
②F.H.Lawson & B.Rudden, The Law of Property, (second edition), Oxford, England,1982, p.76.
① Merryman, Toward a Comparative Study of the Sale of Land,2Ius Privatum Gentium:Festschrift fur Max Rheinstein,1969, p.737.
② See John Henry Merryman, Ownership and Estate (Variations on a Theme by Lawson),48 Tul. L. Rev.916, 1974, p.920.
①黄迪：《财产权体系问题之反思》,南昌大学硕士学位论文,2007年11月。
②马俊驹、梅夏英：《财产权制度的历史评析与现实思考》,《中国社会科学》,1999年,第90-105页。
1,梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》,法律出版社2007年版。
2.王利明：《物权法论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
3.高富平、吴一鸣：《英美不动产法-兼与大陆法比较》,清华大学出版社2007年版。
4.陈永强：《英美法上的交易自治与交易安全—以房土地交易法为视角》,法律出版社2009年版。
5.余辉：《英国信托法：起源、发展及其影响》,清华大学出版社2007年版。
6.赵廉慧：《财产权的概念---从契约的视角分析》,知识产权出版社2005年版。
7.佟柔：《中国民法学·民法总则》,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年版。
8.谢在全：《民法物权论》(上),中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
9.梁慧星：《民法总则》,法律出版社1996年版。
10.陈华彬：《物权法原理》,国家行政学院出版社1998年版。
11.郭建：《中国财产法史稿》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
12.何勤华主编：《美国法律发达史》,上海人民出版社1998年版。
13.李红海：《普通法的历史解读---从梅特兰开始》,清华大学出版社2008年版。
14.李培锋：《英美信托财产权难以融入大陆法物权体系的根源》,《环球法律评论》2009年第5期。
15.马俊驹、梅夏英：“财产权制度的历史评析与现实思考”,载《中国社会科学》1999年第1期。
16.冉昊： “论英美财产法中的产权(title)概念及其制度功能”,载《法律科学》2006年第5期。
17.冉昊：《比较法视野下的英美财产法基本构造》,载《法学》2005年11期。
18.孙新强：《大陆法对英美法上L IEN制度的误解及L IEN的本意探源》,载《比较法研究》2009年第1期。
19.秦伟、杨占勇：《论所有权及其权能分离的双向性》,载《东岳论丛》,2001年第4期。
20.易继明：《财产、财产权及其哲学基础》,载《中日民商法研究》(第三卷),法律出版社2005年版。
21.刘保玉：《中国物权法的成就与不足——兼及法律移植与融合中的“鸡尾酒论”》,载《法学论坛》2008年第5期。
22.《法学大辞典》,中国政法大学出版社1991年版。
1.[法]勒内·达维德：《当代主要法律体系》,上海译文出版社1984年版。
2.[英]F.H.劳森,伯纳德·冉得著《英国财产法导论》,曹培译,法律出版社2008年版。
3.[美]罗纳德波斯顿：《美国财产法的当前发展趋势》载《外国法译评》1994年第3期。
4.[德]K.茨威格特、H.克茨：《比较法总论》,潘汉典、米健等译,法律出版社2003年版。
5.[德]拉德布鲁赫著：《法学导论》,米健、朱林等译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
6.[美]理查德·A波斯纳著,蒋兆康译,林毅夫校：《法律的经济分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年6月第1版。
7.[日]我妻荣著：《债权在近代法中的优越地位》,王书江、张雷译,中国大百科全书出版社1999年版。
8.[英]戴安·查佩尔著,《土地法》第五版,朗文·培生法学基础系列·影印本,法律出版社2003年版。
9.[美]约翰·E·克里贝特,科温·W·约翰逊等,《财产法：案例与材料》(Property:Cases and Materials)(第七版),齐东祥,陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
10.[英]约翰·哈德森：《英国普通法的形成—从诺曼征服到大宪章时期英格兰的法律与社会》,刘四新译,商务印书馆2006年版。
11.[美]约翰·G.斯普兰克林,《美国财产法精解》(Understanding Property Law)(第二版),钟书峰译,北京大学出版社2009年1月版。
12.[德]H.科殷：《法哲学》,林荣远译,华夏出版社2002年版。
1. Boone, Charles Theodore, Manual of the Law of Real Property, San Francisco: S. Whitney & Co.,1883.
2. Bernard Rudden, Economic Theory v. Property Law:The Numerus Clausus Problem, in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence:Third Series (John Eekelaar & John Bell eds.,1987.
3. C. R. Noyes, The Institution of Property:A Study of Development, Substance and Arrangement of the System of Property in Modern Anglo-American Law, New York:Longmans, Green & Co.,1936. Cornelius J. Moynihan, Introduction to the Law of Real Property2nd ed.,1988.
4. Diane Chappelle, Land Law 5th, Person Education Limited,2001.
5. Digby, Kenelm Edward, Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1875.
6. F. H. Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks At The Civil Law, Uni. of Michigan Law School,1953.
7. F. H. Lawson, Introduction to the Law of Property,1958.
8. F. H. Lawson and B. Rudden, The Law of Property 2nd, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England,1982.
9. Francis Hilliard, American Law of Real Property 3rd end, greatly enl. and imp., New York:Banks, Gould & co.; Albany:Gould, Banks & co.,1855.
10. Pollock F, Maitland F.W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edwardl., vol. II, Cambridge University Press,1968.
11. Gray, Elements of Land Law,2nd edn,1999.
12. G. C. Cheshire, Modern Law of Real Property 3rd edn,1933.
13. Levis Simes, American Law of Property,1952.
14. Holmes, The Common Law, New York, Brown and Company,1881.
15. Josiah W. Smith, A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property Connected with Conveyancing for the Use of Students and Practitioners, Philadelphia, T. & J.W.Johnson,1856.
16. Joseph William Singer, Introduction to Property, Aspen Publishers.
17. John G. Sprankling, Understanding the Property Law, LexisNexis.
18. J. J. S. Wiiarton, Oxon, Principles of Conveyancing:Including Dissertations on I.--estate:Both as to Quantity and Quality. Ⅱ.--Copyholds, Customary Freeholds, and Ancient Demesnes. III. Uses, Trusts, and Powers. IV.--Title:Abstracts of Title, and Registration, T. & J.W.Jonson, Law booksellers,1851.
19. Kate Green, Joe Cursley, Land Law(10th), Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,2001.
20. Plucknett, Theodore F. T., A Concise History of the Common Law, The lawyers Co-operative P.C.,1925.
21. Robert E. Megarry & M. P. Thompson, A Manual of the Law of Real Property,6th edn,1993.
22. William B. Stoebuck, Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property,3rd edn, St. Paul, Minn.,2000.
23. W. T. Murphy and Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, Sweet & Maxwell 3rd edn,1998.
24. W. M. L. Burdick, Handbook of the Law of Real Property, West Publishing Co.,1914.
25. Walter Henry Burton, Elementary Compendium of the Law of Real Property, Philadelphia:J. S. Littell; New York:Halsted and Voorhies,1839.
26. W. Warren, Choses in action,1899, Sweet & Max Well.
1. Charles A. Reich, The New Property,73 Yale L. J.733,1964.
2. C. M. A. McCauliff, The Medieval Origin of the Doctrine of estate in Land: Substantive Property Law, Family Considerations, and the Interests of Women, Tulane Law Review, March,1992.
3. Carly Howard, Trust Funds in Common Law and Civil Law Systems:A Comparative Analysis, University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review,2006.
4. David R. Duhord, Time-Share Condominiums:Property's Fourth Dimension, Me. L. Rev.,1980.
5. D. Benjamin Barros, Toward a Model Law of Estate and Future Interests, Washington and Lee Law Review,2009.
6. Ellen H. Pollack, Time-Sharing, or Time is Money, But Will it Sell? 10 Real Est. L. J.281,1982. 7. Lawrence W. Waggoner, Reformulating the Structure of estate:A Proposal for
Legislation,85 Harv. L. Rev.729,1972. 8. Hanoch Dagan, The Craft of Property,91 Cal. L. Rev.1517,2003.
9. John E. Cribbet, Concepts in Transition:The Search for a New Definition of
Property, U.111. L. Rev.,1986. 10. Myres S. McDougal, Future Interests Restated:Tradition versus Clarification
and Reform,55 Harv. L. Rev.,1077,1942. 11. Olin L. Browder, Jr., Trusts and the Doctrine of estate,72Mich. L. Rev.1507,
1974. 12. Quoted in Thurman Arnold, Criminal Attempts---The Rise and Fall of an
Abstraction,40Yale L.J.53,1930. 13. Ralph E. Stone, The Federal Trade Commission and Timeshare Resale
Companies,24 Suffolk U. L. Rev.49. 14. Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law
of Property:The Numerus Clausus Principle,110 Yale L.J.1,2000.
15. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,26 Yale L.J.710,1917.
16. William R. Vance, The Quest for Tenure in the United States,33 Yale L. J.248, January.
17. Johnson v. Whiton,34 N.E.542, Mass.1893.
18. Lord Wilberforce, National Provincial Bank Ltd v. Ainsworth [1965], AC,
19. Carrier v. Crestar Bank,561 A.2d 227, Md.1989. 20. Am. L. Institution
21. Black's Law Dictionary,8th edn,2004.
22. C.J.S. Property (Corpus Juris Secundum)
23. FL-CLE (Florida Condominium and Community Association Law)
24. Am. Jur. (American Jurisprudence) 25. Cal. Civ. Code
26. N.Y. Est. Powers & Trust L.