A tail of fees may still exist in England and Wales as an interest just behind strict regulation; Legal assets are transferred to the current “lifetime tenant” or another person who is immediately entitled to income, but on the basis that the accumulated capital must be paid to the settlement trustees. A tenant in possession can lock his fee queue with a simple birth certificate, which does not need to be registered now. A reversion tenant (i.e., a future interest where the property is subject to a prior life interest) must obtain the consent of the life tenant and any “special protector” to simply transfer return costs to themselves. Otherwise, it can only establish a basic fee; a basic royalty confers on its owner a right in the immovable property only if its author would have been entitled to it; If its creator dies before receiving it, the owner of the basic royalty receives nothing. Under the Land Trusts and Trustee Appointment Act 1996, no new “fee queue” can be created. [4] In English common law, a fee tail or implie is a form of trust established by deed or composition that restricts the sale or inheritance of an estate estate and prevents the sale of the property, whether drawn up by will or otherwise disposed of by the tenant, and instead ensures that it is automatically transferred by operation of law to an heir, which is determined by the settlement certificate. The term fee tail comes from the medieval Latin feodum talliatum, meaning “fresh cut (-short)” and contrasts with “fee simple” where there is no such restriction and where the owner has absolute title (although subject to the allodial title of monarch) to the property that he can bequeath or otherwise dispose of as he pleases. Corresponding legal terms exist or existed in many other European countries and elsewhere. This term signifies a change in the rules that govern how property is inherited from legal descendants. Lending against mortgage security on land in Fee Tail was risky because, on the death of the tenant, his personal estate was no longer entitled to the estate or the income derived from it. The absolute right to inheritance income was transferred ipso jure to parties who had no legal obligation to the lender, who therefore could not demand the payment of interest for the new tenants in self-administration. The largest estate that a Fee Tail owner could transfer to someone else was an estate for the life of the settlor. Therefore, if everything went according to plan, it was impossible for the succession of patriarchs to lose the country, which was the idea.

[ref. needed] Other European legal systems had similar arrangements for holding goods together, especially in Spain and northern European countries such as Prussia. They are derived from the fideicommissum, a legal institution under Roman law. Unlike most English aristocracies, the Prussian Junkers supported the tail of fees and managed to reintroduce it in 1853 after it was abolished in a new constitution. In Germany and Austria, the fideikommiss family was not abolished until 1938, and in Scandinavia it still existed – some old Swedish fee queues are still in force, although no new ones can be introduced. Especially for the law of the German and Austrian Fideicommissa, an 862-page textbook by the German jurist Philipp Knipschildt entitled Tractatus de fideicommissis nobilium familiarum – von Stammgüter (De fideicommissis on Google Books) was the standard reference work. This major systematization of existing legal opinions, first published in 1654, was frequently reprinted and consulted for much of the 19th century. The royalty tail allowed a patriarch to immortalize his lineage, surname, honor, and coat of arms[1] in the person of a number of powerful and wealthy male descendants. By keeping one`s succession in the hands of a single heir, in an ideally indefinite and predetermined chain of succession, one`s own wealth, power and family honor would not be dispersed among several male lines, as was the case, for example, in the Napoleonic France through the Napoleonic Code, which gave each child the legal right to inherit an equal share of the inheritance.

where an old large family of landowners could be reduced in a few generations to a number of small farmers or small farmers. It is therefore closer to the real corporation, which is a legal person or a person who does not die and continues to exist and can hold unlimited assets. In fact, as a form of trust, although individual trustees may die, replacements are appointed and the trust itself continues to exist, ideally indefinitely. In England, almost smooth succession arrangements were made from patriarch to patriarch, the flexibility of which was often enhanced by the baptism of the eldest son and heir with his father`s Christian name for several generations, for example the FitzWarin family, all called Fulks.