History and Concepts of Boundaries Essay

Subject to all restrictions, reservations conditions and exceptions as set forth in deeds forming the chain of title.

Clear identification of the location of construction and areas proposed to be disturbed and their relation to property lines, buildings, roads, and waterbodies within one hundred (100) feet.

Physical demarkation was the main practice the English used to symbolize the ownership of new land. The methods they used to mark such territory were the building of houses, gardens, and constructing fences. Houses created a legal right to the land. As declared by Seed, “ building the first house was critical to the initial stages of English settlement in the first place because

The distribution of Government lands had been an issue since the Revolutionary War. Early methods for allocating unsettled land outside the

Subject to all restrictions, reservations and exceptions as set forth in deeds forming the chain of title.

Real estate is a legal term that includes land along with anything permanently affixed to the land such as buildings, fences and things attached to the buildings, such as plumbing, heating, and light fixtures. The properties not affixed are regarded as personal property.

**c. If there is a conflict between a state statute and a federal statute, the federal statute

a. Supremacy Law- “ The constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in the pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme law of the land.”

2. Due to the circumstances of the contract (that it be for sale of land) specific performance will be awarded.

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

1. The Mashpee Wamponoag lost their 1976 lawsuit seeking to reclaim approximately 16,000 acres that had previously belonged to them on Cape Cod. Which of the following was not true regarding the case?

that decide to include another group, religion, country and or settlers into their culture or environment. Exclusion is to prevent or restrict the entrance or/to expel or bar especially from a place or position previously occupied. An inclusive policy of colonization would mean making colonized subjects an integral part of your new system and an exclusive policy would be pushing the vanquished out of the new system. Exclusion is to expel and keep out, thrust out, or to eject. The ways

The key point of contention in this scenario is the quitclaim deed with which Julio Gazpacho attempted to convey ownership of the easement to his neighbors, Ruben and Regina Gomez, because contrary to popular public belief, quitclaim deeds have at best a tenuous legal status within the state of Texas. In this case, rather than utilize a proper warranty deed to legally transfer title of ownership to the easement, Mr. Gazpacho elected to use a quitclaim deed that Texan legal precedent has universally deemed to be invalid. According to the landmark decision made in Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, "a quitclaim deed conveys any title, interest, or claim of the grantor in the real property, but it does not profess that the title is valid nor does it contain any warranty or covenants of title. Thus, a quitclaim deed does not establish title in the person holding the deed, but merely passes whatever interest the grantor has in the property" Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). The fact that the only claim to title on the easement held by Ruben and Regina Gomez is made through the fundamentally flawed legal device of the quitclaim deed is crucial to properly deciding this case.

Throughout American history, the definition, allocation and protection of property rights has been one of the most controversial and combative issues. According to Armen and Demsetz (1973), “…a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If person A is not allowed to buy some rights from Person B and Person B therefore is not allowed to

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the