Transplantation and mutation in anglo-american trust law

Theoretical Inquiries in Law

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2009, Pages

  Getzler, Joshua ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68349107860     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15653404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2202/1565-3404.1220     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. JAMES HUMPHREYS, OBSERVATIONS ON THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE ENGLISH LAWS OF REAL PROPERTY, WITH THE OUTLINES OF A CODE (London, J. Murray 1826);
2. Bernard Rudden, A Code Too Soon: The 1826 Property Code of James Humphreys, in ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PROFESSOR F.H. LAWSON 101 (P. Wallington & R.M. Merkin eds., 1986).
3. Writ offi. fa. against a debtor, or distraint against a tenant, with capias or arrest of the person as a further sanction: JOHN H. BAKER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY 64-67, 237-38 (4th ed. 2002).
4. See Langedon v. Stratton (Ct. of the City of London, Aug. 5, 1374); and Statute of Mortmain, 50 Edw. 3, c. 6 (1376) (attacking transfers to uses to defraud creditors), noted in BAKER, supra note 2, at 249 n.6.
5. The story continued into the twentieth century, where many of Humphreys' ideas won acceptance. See J. STUART ANDERSON, LAWYERS AND THE MAKING OF ENGLISH LAND LAW 1832-1940 (1992);
6. AVNER OFFER, PROPERTY AND POLITICS 1870-1914: LANDOWNERSHIP, LAW, IDEOLOGY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN England (1981).
7. EDWARD B. SUGDEN (LATE LORD ST LEONARDS), LETTERS TO JAMES HUMPHREYS 76 (3d ed. 1826), cited in GREGORY ALEXANDER, COMMODITY AND PROPRIETY: COMPETING VISIONS OF PROPERTY IN AMERICAN LEGAL THOUGHT 413-14 (1997).
8. Bernard Rudden, James Humphreys, in NEW DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY(2004).
9. JAMES KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (New York, O. Halstead 1826-30) (4 vols.).
10. Rudden, supra note 1.
11. With the legislative recognition in England of married women's property later in the century, Parliament finally abolished inalienable trusts for women's property, which had served as one of the templates and justifications of the American spendthrift trust; the new English married women's estates carved out by statute were fully alienable.
12. ALEXANDER, supra note 5, at 122-26;
13. ERWINN. GRISWOLD, SPENDTHRIFT TRUSTS46-60 (2d ed. 1947).
14. GRISWOLD, supra note 10, at 21-25. Later Pennsylvanian courts did manage to combine law and equity successfully within the one curial jurisdiction, see ANTONY LAUSSAT, AN ESSAY ON EQUITY IN PENNSYLVANIA 42 (Philadelphia, Robert Desilver 1826); this caught up with the long-established fused practice of the Massachusetts courts, described in Phyllis Maloney Johnson, No Adequate Remedy at Law: Equity in Massachusetts 1692-1877 (June 2, 2008) (unpublished manuscript, on file with author).
15. A key sociological study, emphasizing tax and investment pressures as well as insolvency protection, is Lawrence M. Friedman, The Dynastic Trust, 73 YALE L.J. 547 (1964)
16. Historical insights are offered in benchmark studies by Gregory Alexander, The Dead Hand and the Law ofTrusts in the Nineteenth Century, 37 STAN. L. REV. 1189 (1985);
17. Gregory Alexander, The Transformation of Trusts as a Legal Category, 5LAW &HIST. REV. 303 (1987);
18. ALEXANDER, supra note 5, at 97-184, 277-302.
19. Modern American doctrines are charted in JESSE DUKIMINIER ET AL., WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES (7th ed. 2005).
20. Measurement of the flow of trust funds into states competing to favor settlor interests is adduced in Robert H. Sitkoff & Max Schanzenbach, Jurisdictional Competition for Trust Funds: An Empirical Analysis of Perpetuities and Taxes, 115 YALE L.J. 356 (2005).
21. For criticism of modern toleration of perpetuities, see Jeffrey E. Stake, Darwin, Donations, and the Illusion of Dead Hand Control, 64 TUL. L. REV. 705 (1990). English constraint on settlor purposes continues in the face of offshore pressures.
22. See Paul Matthews, From Obligation to Property, and Back Again? The Future of the Non-Charitable Purpose Trust, in EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF TRUSTS AND SIMILAR RING- FENCED FUNDS 203 (David J. Hayton ed., 2002);
23. cf. David J. Hayton, Developing the Obligation Characteristic of the Trust, 117 L.Q.R. 96 (2001);
24. Patrick Parkinson, Reconceptualising the Express Trust, 61 C.L.J. 657 (2002).
25. GRAHAM MOFFAT wITH GERRY BEAN & JOHNDEWAR, TRUSTS 258-80 (4th ed. 2005).
26. Lynn M. LoPucki, The Death of Liability, 106 YALE L.J. 1 (1996); James J. White,
27. Corporate Judgment Proofing: A Response to Lynn LoPucki's The Death of Liability, 107 YALE L.J. 1363 (1998).
28. Adam J. Hirsch, Fear Not the Asset Protection Trust, 27 CARDOZO L. REV. 2685 (2006); Adam J. Hirsch, Spendthrift Trusts and Public Policy: Economic and Cognitive Perspectives, 73WASH. U. L.Q. 1 (1995).
29. KENT, supra note 7;
30. JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE AS ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA (Boston, Hilliard, Gray & Co. 1835-36). Kent constantly returns to recent American experiments in legislation and case-law, whilst story is almost entirely English in his focus, broaching detailed Chancery doctrine of scant use or interest in the United States. Arguably Story's was polite rather than practical learning, establishing intellectual hegemony rather than policy leadership. MORTON J. HORWITZ, THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN LAW 17801860, at 160 passim (1977), detects in Story's work on equitable regulation of
31. contract an assault on the idea of natural-law just prices in early equity, but this has been doubted: A.W. BRIAN SIMPSON, The Horwitz Thesis and the History of Contracts, in LEGAL THEORY AND LEGAL HISTORY: ESSAYS ON tHE COMMON LAW 203 (1987). One may detect a classicizing formalist ideology in Story's massive and impractical productions of legal science, tacitly projecting the message that law is an autonomous discourse or abstract art divorced from politics.
32. Albert W. Alschuler, Rediscovering Blackstone, 145 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (1996).
33. LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN, A HISTORY OF AMERICAN LAW 3-71 (3d ed. 2005);
34. HORWITZ, supra note 16, at 1-30;
35. WILLIAM E. NELSON, AMERICANIZATION OF THE COMMON LAW: THE IMPACT OF LEGAL CHANGE ON MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY, 1760-1830, at 69-88, 165-74 (1975);
36. JOHN PHILLIP REID, CONTROLLING THE LAW: LEGAL POLITICS IN EARLY NATIONAL NEW HAMPSHIRE (2004);
37. WILLIAM E. NELSON, THE COMMON LAW OF COLONIAL AMERICA I: THE CHESAPEAKE AND NEW ENGLAND 1607-1660, at 67-79, 125-31 (2008).
38. JOHN CHIPMAN GRAY, RESTRAINTS ON THE ALIENATION OF PROPERTY, at xi (Boston, Boston Books 2d ed. 1895) (1883) (condemning the opening given to spendthrift trusts in the New York legislation).
39. ALAN WATSON, LAW OUT OF CONTEXT (2000);
40. Alan Watson, Legal Transplants and European Private Law, in IUS COMMUNE LECTURES ON EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW 1 (2000);
41. Alan Watson, From Legal Transplants to Legal Formats, 43Am.J. COMP. L. 469 (1995);
42. ALAN WATSON, LEGAL TRANSPLANTS (2ded. 1993);
43. S.F.C. MILSOM, A NATURAL HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW (2003).
44. JOHN W. SALMOND, The History of the Law of Prescription, in ESSAYS IN JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL HISTORY 73 (London, Stevens & Haynes 1891), provides a good example of cross-temporal mis-transcription within the common law.
45. ALAN WATSON, JOSEPH STORY AND tHE COMITY OF ERRORS: A CASE STUDY IN CONFLICT OF LAWS (1992).
46. See further John D. Johnston, Developments in Contract Liability of Trusts and Trustees, 41 N.Y.U. L. REV. 483 (1966).
47. On reconstructing trusts doctrine in terms of asset partitioning, see Henry Hansmann & ugo Mattei, The Functions ofTrust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 434 (1998).
48. Treason Acts, 26 Hen. 8, c. 13 (1534), 33 Hen. 8, c. 23 (1541), and 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 11 (1551);
49. Burgess v. Wheate, (1757-59) 1 Wm. Blackstone 123, 96 Eng. Rep. 67;
50. Eden 177, 28 Eng. Rep. 652 (Ct. of Ch.). Republican U.S. law hemmed in escheat and forfeiture still further to protect heirs: U.S. CONST. art. Ill, § 3; Note, Origins and Development of Modern Escheat, 61COLUM. L.REV. 1319 (1961).
51. See Lord Mansfield's recognition of the beneficial interest as a proprietary estate in Burgess, 1 Wm. Blackstone at 155, 96 Eng. Rep. at 81: "If uses, before the Statute of Hen. 8, were considered as a pernancy of the profits, as a personal confidence, as a chose in action; and now trusts are considered as real estates, as the real ownership of the land." For the socioeconomic context, see JOHN HABAKKUK, MARRIAGE, DEBT, AND THE ESTATES SYSTEM: ENGLISH LANDOWNERSHIP 1650-1950 (1994). The legal development of uses and trusts is described in John L. Barton, The Medieval Use, 81 L.Q.R. 562 (1965);
52. Richard H. Helmholz, Early Enforcement of Uses, 79 COLUM. L. REV. 1503 (1979);
53. JOHN H. BAKER & S.F.C. MILSOM, SOURCES OF ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY: PRIVATE LAW TO 1750, at 94-133 (1986);
54. JOHN H. BAKER, THE OXFORD HISTORY OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, VOLUME VI, 1483-1558 (2003);
55. ITINERA FIDUCIAE: TRUST AND TREUHAND IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (Richard H. Helmholz & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 1998).
56. (1841) 4 Beavan 115, 49 Eng. Rep. 282 (M.R.), aff'd, Cr. & Ph. 240, 41 Eng. Rep. 482 (L.C.). The most recent close study is Paul Matthews, The Comparative Importance of the Rule in Saunders v Vautier, 122 L.Q.R. 266 (2006).
57. R.S. DONNISON ROPER & HENRY HOPLEY WHITE, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF LEGACIES 580 (London, J. Butterworth 4th ed. 1847) (1799).
58. Thellusson v. Woodford, (1798) 4 Vesey Jun. 227, 31 Eng. Rep. 117 (L.C.), aff'd, (1805) 1 Bosanquet & Puller New Rep. 357, 127 Eng. Rep. 502; 11 Vesey Jun. 112, 32 Eng. Rep. 1030 (H.L.); Curtis v. Lukin, (1842) 5 Beaven 147, 49 Eng. Rep. 533 (M.R.);
59. PATRICK POLDEN, PETER THELLUSSON'S WILL OF 1797 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ON CHANCERY LAW (2002).
60. Lord Cottenham himself adduced authorities denying the vesting of a gift where payment was conditioned on an event in the earlier case of Watson v. Hayes, (1839) 5 Mylne & Craig 125, 41 Eng. Rep. 319 (L.C.), including Batsford v. Kebbell, (1797) 3 Vesey Jun. 363, 30 Eng. Rep.1055 (L.C.);
61. Hanson v. Graham, (1801) 6 Vesey Jun. 239, 31 Eng. Rep. 1030 (M.R.); Leake v. Robinson, (1817) 2 Merivale 363, 35 Eng. Rep. 979 (M.R.);
62. and Vawdry v. Geddes, (1830) 1 Russell & Mylne 203, 39 Eng. Rep. 78 (M.R.). For similar decisions denying vesting post-Saunders, see In re Trusts of the Will of Bennett, (1857) 3 Kay & Johnson 280, 69 Eng. Rep. 1114 (V.-C.); In re Hart's Trusts, (1858) 3 De Gex & Jones 195, 44 Eng. Rep.
63. -1243 (C.A. in Ch.); cf. Josselynv. Josselyn, (1837) 9 Simons 63, 59 Eng. Rep. 281 (v.-C.).
64. See, e.g., Dundas v. Wolfe Murray, (1863) 1 Hemming & Miller 425, 71 Eng. Rep. 185 (V.-C.).
65. In re Smith, [1928] Ch. 915.
66. Grey v. I.R.C., [1959] 3 All E.R. 603 (H.L.).
67. The legal techniques are evoked in Michael Macnair, Equity and Volunteers, 8 LEGAL STUD. 172 (1988).
68. Gosling v. Gosling, (1859) Johnson 265, 272, 70 Eng. Rep. 423, 426 (Wood V.-C.).
69. [1895] 1 A.C. 186, 193 (H.L.).
70. Michael Chesterman, Family Settlements on Trust: Landowners and the Rising Bourgeoisie, in LAW, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, 1750-1914: ESSAYS IN THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 124 (Gerry R. Rubin & David Sugarman eds., 1984);
71. Peter Luxton, Variation of Trusts: Settlors' Intentions and the Consent Principle in Saunders v Vautier, 60 M.L.R. 719 (1997).
72. For a key precedent, see Davidson v. Foley, (1787) 2 Brown's Ch. Cas. 203, 29 Eng. Rep. 115 (Thurlow, L.C.).
73. -18 vesey Jun. 429, 433-34, 34 Eng. Rep. 379, 381 (L.C.).
74. (1782-83) 1 Brown's Ch. Cas. 274, 28 Eng. Rep. 1125 (L.C.), aff'd, [1785] 4 Brown P.C. 319, 2 Eng. Rep. 216 (Lords Comm'rs), aff'd, [1789] 4 Brown P.C. 34, 2 Eng. Rep. 23; 1 Equity Cas. Abridged 363, 21 Eng. Rep. 1104 (H.L.), interpreted and applied in Rochford v. Hackman, (1852) 9 Hare 475, 68 Eng. Rep. 597 (v.-C.).
75. In re Smith, [1928] Ch. 915.
76. -20N.E. 454 (Ma. 1889).
77. Authorities are assayed in Gray, supra note 19, at 99-125 and GRISWOLD, supra note 10, at 581-653.
78. -91 u.s. 716.
79. Id. at 725-27. See also the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyde v. Woods, 94 U.S. 523, 526 (1877), also delivered by Justice Miller.
80. The doctrine forbidding federal judicial intervention in state private-law causes was recognized in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), overruling Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842).
81. Nichols, 91 U.S. at 725-27.
82. Cited in Friedman, supra note 18, at 26-27.
83. Alison D. Morantz, There's No Place Like Home: Homestead Exemption and Judicial Constructions of Family in Nineteenth-Century America, 24LAW &HIST. REV. 245 (2006).
84. EDWARD J. BALLEISEN, NAVIGATING FAILURE: BANKRUPTCY AND COMMERCIAL SOCIETY IN ANTEBELLUM AMERICA (2001);
85. DAVID A. SKEEL, JR., DEBT ' s DOMINION : A HISTORY OF BANKRUPTCY LAW IN AMERICA (2001);
86. BRUCE H. MANN, REPUBLIC OF DEBTORS: BANKRUPTCY IN THE AGE OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE (2002);
87. Rafael Efrat, The Evolution of Bankruptcy Stigma, 7THEORETiCAL INQUIRIES L. 365 (2006). The late development of traders' bankruptcy regimes in England is charted in WILLIAM R. CORNISH & GEOFFREY DE N. CLARK, LAW AND SOCIETY IN ENGLAND 1750-1950, at 230-37 (1989);
88. V. MARKHAM LESTER, VICTORIAN INSOLVENCY: BANKRUPTCY, IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, AND COMPANY WINDING-UP IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY ENGLAND (1995).
89. A view promoted by modern economic historians: Richard sylla, Financial Systems and Economic Modernization, 62J.EcON.HlST. 277 (2002).
90. Plus ca change
91. Cf. Friedman, supra note 12, at 578.
92. -133 Mass. 170 (1882).
93. Id. at 173-74.
94. See, for example, the use of Saunders v. Vautier in Landram v. Jordan, 25 App. D.C. 291 (C.A.D.C. 1905), aff'd, 203 U.S. 56 (1906); Comm'r v. Field, 42 F.2d 820 (2dCir. 1930) (Hand, J.).
95. -4 KENT, supra note 7, at 306-08, a passage deserving of close reading. See further ALEXANDER, supra note 5, at 149-57. DUNCAN KENNEDY, THE RISE AND FALL OF CLASSICAL LEGAL THOUGHT 99-162 (1975) (reissued 1998 & 2006), offers a reconstruction of Kent's property thought that misses entirely his complex reactions to the New York reforms.
96. GRAY, supra note 19, at 120-25 & passim; GRISWOLD, supra note 10, at 24-33; Austin W. Scott, Control of Property by the Dead, 65U.PA. L.REV. 527 (1917).
97. See Friedman, supra note 12, at 572-86.
98. Smith v. Towers, 14 A. 497 (Ct. App. Md. 1888), cited in Friedman, supra note 12, at 577.
99. -229 U.S. 90 (1913); the background to the lower-court litigation of the case is set out in Note, The Doctrine of Claflin v. Claflin, 24 HARV. L.REV. 224 (1911).
100. GRISWOLD, supra note 10, at 24-29, 583-92.
101. CRAIG MULDREW, THE ECONOMY OF OBLIGATION: THE CULTURE OF CREDIT AND SOCIAL RELATIONS IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND (1998);
102. HABAKKUK, supra note 26; Adam S. Hofri-Winogradow, Protection of Family Property from Creditors in the Enlightenment-Era Court of Chancery (Mar. 9, 2008) (unpublished manuscript), available at http: //ssrn.com/abstract=1104385.
103. Joshua Getzler, The Role of Security over Future and Circulating Capital: Evidence from the British Economy circa 1850-1920, in COMPANY CHARGES: SPECTRUM AND BEYOND 227 (Joshua Getzler & Jennifer Payne eds., 2006).
104. HABAKKUK, supra note 26, at 243 passim; F.M.L. THOMPSON, GENTRIFICATION AND THE ENTERPRISE CULTURE: BRITAIN 1780-1980 (2001).
105. Claire Priest, Creating an American Property Law: Alienability and Its Limits in American History, 120 HARV. L. REV. 385 (2006) (mainly bringing evidence from the eighteenth century but offering interpretations of later periods also).
106. HORWITZ, supra note 16, at 63-119.
107. MARTIN WIENER, ENGLISH CULTURE AND THE DECLINE OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPIRIT, 1850-1980 (1981); cf. Thompson, supra note 65.
108. Chesterman, supra note 37.