And just to throw in a wild card for interest, one of my ancestors had a two thousand year lease (from another family member) on land called Seale Fields in Surrey. This is mentioned in his will of 1669, though I don't know when the lease dated from. I was astounded when I read this and wondered if such a long term was at all common? Alwynne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Leasehold? > <<NOW I understand how leaseholds work! Thanks to the very knowledgeable > and helpful people on this list, I now *get* the differences between > holding land in England and holding land in the U S. Very interesting > concepts. Obviously, it works, given that it has been in effect for many > centuries now. And I can see how a leasehold would be considered a > valuable bequest.>> > > > Umm, actually, Nancy, leaseholds are pretty much as common in the United > States as in England. There are differences in detail between the 2 > systems at the present time (just as there are between the systems of the > various states), but property is probably leased nearly as often in the US > as it is in England (the differences between the English and US systems > are minor compared to the differences between them both and landholding in > other, non-English-settled countries - including Scotland, whose property > law is very different from that of both the US and England!). And back in > 1775 the differences would have been even less - the property law > operating in each state was basically the English common law with various > changes of detail made by local statutes. > > You may perhaps have been mislead by the word 'leasehold' - it just means > land held by a lease, and 'lease' can comprehend a wide variety of forms > of tenancy (which may be known by other labels than 'lease'), ranging from > short-term contracts at a rack rent with no security of tenure to very > lengthy terms at very low rents with rights of renewal. Those towards the > latter end of the spectrum would have considerable capital value and would > indeed represent a valuable legacy. > > Matt Tompkins > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<From: Alwynne Mackie [mailto:alwynnem@melbpc.org.au] And just to throw in a wild card for interest, one of my ancestors had a two thousand year lease (from another family member) on land called Seale Fields in Surrey. This is mentioned in his will of 1669, though I don't know when the lease dated from. I was astounded when I read this and wondered if such a long term was at all common?>> Very lengthy terms like that were commonly used as conveyancing devices in family settlements and similar arrangements. They seldom lasted for very long - once the conveyancing purpose had been achieved they would disappear. The more common-or-garden occupational lease, granted for a rent (and sometimes also a premium) to someone who would actually occupy the land, was seldom for a term of more than 20 or 30 years (and could be as short as a few months or a year or two). Building leases, granted for a low ground rent and a substantial premium, were typically for 99 or 125 years - but anything longer would normally be a conveyancing device. Matt Tompkins