Talk:seised in fee

seised in fee
Should be 'to seise in fee' shouldn't it? Would this be considered SoP? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 05:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No - there are vanishingly few Google hits for that. It just needed properly formatting as an adjective, and given a better definition. Now keep. SemperBlotto 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The mystery is entirely in the component words. seise: is a normally inflecting verb. "In fee" is a normal prepositional phrase. I don't think "in fee" would merit inclusion. Black's Law Dictionary does not have either phrase, nor does any OneLook reference. In any event, "seised in fee" doesn't meet the tests of adjectivity: use after "become" or modified by "too" or "very". DCDuring TALK 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's definitely verifiable. I was just not sure whether to include it as a verb entry or adjective. Will leave it as it is for now. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be seised + in fee, neither of which I knew as words but now I do, delete for sum-of-partsness. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the entry as "seised in fee" is used as a specific legal term, and as such this entry is useful for anyone like me who needed to know what it means. I don't mind if it is redirected providing that the redirect does not drop any of the meaning, but I do not think it should be deleted, any more than fee simple should be, because AFAICT from the sources I have see it does not necessarily mean free-simple (although it does not include estates held in free tail -- BTW why is there no entry for that?), because there may be (or have been if it is used to describe an estate in an historical period) some feudal obligations attached to the fee which AFAICT does not make all "seised in fee" "seised in fee-simple" but I'm not expert, and I have no way to judge if estates held in free simple can have feudal obligations attached to them. If they can then why the additional entry for fee and feudalism under fee? -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So no consensus to delete. Time for this to be removed from this list. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither the creator of the entry/sense nor the nom are the right ones to close out an RfD or RfV. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this is SOP, as seised merely reflects a type of ownership, and in fee (which we should have) describes the estate owned. We could just as easily say "owned in fee" or "possessed in fee" or "purchased in fee". We should definitely have entries for in fee and fee tail, but their absence is irrelevent to the inclusion of this phrase. On the other hand, legal dictionaries often contain entries for phrases that would be considered SOP for non-specialized dictionaries. bd2412 T 14:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering this. I have worked on in fee and "seise of" (also "possess of") to make this clearer. All of these seem archaic or dated, even in a legal context. Quotes would help, but does that seem right? DCDuring TALK 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * deleted -- Prince Kassad 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)