Talk:Personal property

Changed from redirect
I've changed this from a redirect, personal property is not just property, it is a type of property.Alex756


 * Redirect doesn't mean it is synonymous to the destination because each artcile in wikipedia covers ideas, topics, themes or matters unlike dictionaries. Actually this is part of the debate we have had. I still don't understand why we need to have a separate article for each type of property or related concepts. I think it is a better to have one article discussing ideas related to property for both readers and contributers[sic]. Yeah, the article can be too long then we have to split off some detailed part to a separate article. -- Taku 16:00 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

This is not an article related to property ideas,[sic] that is something quite different—the types of property. It is like saying we should only have an article about computer programs, but no articles about the specific types of computer programs because everything about programs should be on the same page. Better yet, there should only be a page on computers, and no separate page on computer programs because the programs are really just a minor part of computers. Is this kind of reductionism really useful in any subject where you are trying to help people learn about something?

Here is an example of personal property from the 1911 encyclopedia:


 * PERSONAL PROPERTY, one branch of the main division of the English law of property, the other being &ldquo;real property.&rdquo; The division of property into real and personal represents in a great measure the division into immovable and movable incidentally recognized in Roman law and generally adopted since. &ldquo; Things personal,&rdquo; according to Blackstone, &ldquo; are goods, money, and all other movables which may attend the owner&rsquo;s person wherever he thinks&rsquo; proper to go &ldquo; (Comm. ii. 16). This identification of things personal with movables, though logical in theory, does not, as will be seen, perfectly express the English law, owing to the somewhat anomalous position of chattels real. In England real property is supposed to be superior in dignity to personal property, which was originally of little importance from a legal point of view. This view is the result of feudal ideas, and had no place in the Roman system, in which immovables and movables were dealt with as far as possible in the same manner, and descended according to the same rules. The main differences between real and personal property which still exist in England are these. (I) In real property there can be nothing more than limited ownership; there can be no estate properly so called in personal property, and it may be held in complete ownership. There is nothing corresponding to an estate-tail in personal property; words which in real property would create an estate-tail will give an absolute interest in personalty. A life-interest may, however, be given in personalty, except in articles quae ipso usu consumuntur. Limitations of personal property, equally with those of real property, fall within the rule against perpetuities. (2) Personal property is not subject to various incidents of real property, such as rent, dower or escheat. (3) On the death of the owner intestate real property descends to the heir; personal property is divided according to the Statute of Distributions. (4) Real property as a general rule must be transferred by deed; personal property does not need so solemn a mode of transfer. (5) Contracts relating to real property must be in writing by the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. II. C. 3, s. 4; contracts relating to personal property need only be in writing when it is expressly so provided by statute, as, for instance, in the cases falling under s. 17 of the Statute of Frauds. (6) A will of lands need not be proved, but a will of personalty or of personal and real property together must be proved in order to give a title to those claiming under it. (7) Devises of real estate fall as a rule within the Mortmain Acts (see CHARITY AND CITA1mITIEs; CoRPORATIoN); bequests of personal property, other than chattels real, are not within the act. (8) Mortgages of real property need not generally be segistered; mortgages of personal property for the most part require registration under the Bills of Sale Acts (see PLEDGE, and BILL OF SALE).


 * Personal estate is divided in English law into chattels real and chattels personal; the latter are again divided into choses in possession and choses in action (see CHATTEL; CHOSE).


 * Interest in personal property may be either absolute or qualified. The latter case is illustrated by animals ferae naturae, in which property is only coextensive with detention. Personal property may be acquired by occupancy (including the accessio, commixtio and confusio of Roman law), by invention, as patent and copy. right. or by transfer, either by the act of the law (as in bankruptcy judgment and intestacy), or by the act of the party (as in gift, contract and will).


 * There are several cases in which, by statute or otherwise, property is taken out of the class of real or personal to which it seems naturally to belong. By the operation of the equitable doctrine of conversion money directed to be employed in the purchase of land, or land directed to be turned into money, is in general regarded as that species of property into which it is directed to be converted. An example of property prima facie real which is treated as personal is an estate pur autre vie, which, since 14 Geo. II. C. 20, s. 9, 1740&mdash;1741 (now replaced by the Wills Act 1837, s. 6) is distributable as personal property in the absence of a special occupant. Examples of property prima facie personal which is treated as real are fixtures, heirlooms, such as deeds and family portraits, and shares in some of the older companies, as the New River Company, which are real estate by statute. In ordinary &lsquo;cases shares in companies are personal property, unless the shareholders have individually some interest in the land as land.


 * The terms heritable and movable of Scots law to a great extent correspond with the real and personal of English law. The main points of difference are these. (I) Leases are heritable as to the succession to the lessee, unless the destination expressly exclude heirs, but are movable as to the fisk. (2) Money due on mortgages and securities on land is personalty in England. At common law in Scotland debts secured on heritable property are themselves heritable. But by the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868, s. 117, heritable securities are movable as far as regards the succession of the creditor, unless executors are expressly excluded. They still, however, remain heritable quoad fiscum, as &lsquo;between husband and wife, in computing legitim, and as far as regards the succession of the debtor. (3) Up to 1868 the heir of heritage succeeded to certain movable goods called heirship movabtes, which bore a strong likeness to the heirlooms of English law. This right of the heir was abolished by the act of 1868, s. i6o.


 * (4) Annuities, as having tractum futuri tern poris, are heritable, and an obligation to pay them falls upon the heir of the deceased (Watson, Law Dirt. s.v. &ldquo; Annuities &ldquo;).


 * The law in the United States agrees in most respects with that of England. Heirlooms are unknown, one reason being, no doubt, that the importance of title-deeds is much less than it is in England, owing to the operation of the Registration Acts. Long terms in sOme states have annexed to them the properties of freehold estates. In some states estates pur autre vie descend like real property; in others an estate pier autrg vie is deemed a freehold only during the life of the grantee; after his death it becomes a chattel real. In yet other states the heir has a scintilla of interest as special occupant (Kent, Comm. iv. 27). In some states railway rolling-stock is considered as purely personal, in others it has been held to be a fixture, and so to partake of the nature of real property. Shares in some of, the early American corporations were, like New River shares in England, made real estate by statute, as in the case of the Cape Sable Company in Maryland (Schouler, Law of Personal Property, I.). In Louisiana animals employed in husbandry are, and slaves were, regarded as immovables. Pews in churches are generally real property, but in some states they are made personal property by statute. The assignment of choses in action is generally permitted, and is In most states regulated by statute. (J. W.)

Now, compare Real Property:


 * REAL PROPERTY. The land law of England and of countries whose law is based upon that of England stands in a peculiar position, which can. be understood only by an outline of its history.


 * History.&mdash;Such terms as &ldquo;fee&rdquo; or &ldquo; homage&rdquo; carry us back into feudal times. Rights of common and distress are based upon still older institutions, forming the very basis of primitive law. The conception of tenure is the fundamental ground of distinction between real and personal estate, the former only being strictly entitled to the name of estate (q.v.). The division into real and personal is coincident to a great extent with that into immovable and movable, generally used by systems of law founded on the Roman (see PERSONAL PROPERTY.) That it is not entirely coincident is due to the influence of the Roman law itself. The Greeks and the Romans of the republic were essentially nations of citizens; the Teutons were essentially a nation of land-folk; the Roman empire bridged the gul&rsquo; between the two. It is probable that the English land la~ was produced by the action of the policy adopted in the lowel empire, finally developed into feudalism, upon the previously existing course of Teutonic custom. The distinguishing features of the Teutonic system were enjoyment in common and the absence of private ownership, except to a limited extent. The principal features of the old English land law before the Conquest, from which the modern law has developed, were (1) liberty of alienation, either by will or inter vivos, of such land as could be alienated, chiefly, if not entirely, bocland, subject always to the limits fixed by the boc; (2) publicity of transfer by enrolment in the shire-book or church-book; (3) equal partition of the estate of a deceased among the sons, and failing sons among the daughters; (4) cultivation. to a great extent by persons in various degrees of serfdom, owing money or labour rents; (5) variety of custom, tending to become uniform, through the application of the same principles in the local courts; (6) subjection of land to the trinoda necessitas, a burden imposed for the purpose of defence of the realm. The rudiments of the conceptions of tenure and of the crown as lord paramount were found in the old English system, and lnnland was an anticipation of the limited interests which afterwards became of such importance.1 The connexion of political privileges with the ownership


 * i The name has not remained as in Germany and Denmark. A fief is still Lehen in Germany, Lehn in Denmark of land is not peculiar to the pre-Conquest or any other period. It runs through the whole of English history.


 * The elements of feudalism so far existed in England under the Anglo-Saxon and Danish kings as to make it easy to introduce it in full at the Norman Conquest. What the Norman Conquest did was not to change all at once allodial into feddal tenure, but to complete the association of territorial with personal dependence in a state of society already prepared for it.i &ldquo; Nulle terre sans seigneur&rdquo; was one of the fundamental axioms of feudalism. There might be any number of infeudations and subinfeudations to mesne lords, but the chain of seigniory was complete, depending in the last resort upon the king as lord paramount. Land was not owned by free owners owing only necessary militia duties to the state, but was held of the king by military service of a more onerous nature. The folkland became the king&rsquo;s land; the soldier was a landowner instead of the landowner being a soldier. Free owners tended to become tenants of the lord, the township to be lost in the manor.1 The common land became in law the waste of the manor, its enjoyment resting upon a presumed grant by the lord, On the other hand, the whole of England did not become manorial; the conifict between the township and the manor resulted in a compromise, the result of which affects English tenure to this day. But it was a compromise much to the advantage of the privileged class, for in England more than in any other country the land law is the law of the nobility and not of the people. One reason of this is that, as England was never so completely feudalized as were some of the European continental states, the burden of feudalism was not so severely felt, and has led to less agitation for reform.


 * The land forfeited to the Conqueror was regranted by him to be held by military service due to the king, not to the mesne lord as in European continental feudalism. In 1086 at the council of Salisbury all the landholders swore fealty to the crown. In the full vigour of feudalism the inhabitants of England were either free or not free. The free inhabitants held their lands either by free tenure (liberum tenementum, franktenement) or by a tenure which was originally that of a non-free inhabitant, but attached to land in the possession of a free man. Franktene-, ment was either military tenure, called also tenure in knight service or chivalry (including barony, the highest tenure known to the law, grand serjeanty and the special forms of escuage, castle-guard, cornage and others) or socage (including burgage and petit serjeanty), or frankalmoign (libera eleemosyna) or divine service, by which ecclesiastical corpoiations generally held their land.3 The non-free inhabitants were in Domesday Book servi, cotarii or bordari-i, later nativi or villani, the last name being applied to both free men and serfs. All these were in a more or less dependent condition. The free tenures all exist at the present day, though, as will appear later, the military tenures have shrunk into the unimportant and exceptional tenure of grand serjeanty. The non-free tenures are to a certain extent represented by copyhold. The most important difference between the military and socage tenures was the mode of descent. Whether or not a feudal benefice was originally hereditary, it had certainly become so at the time of the Conquest, and it descended to the eldest son. This applied at once in England to land held by military service as far as regarded the capital fief. The descent of socage lands or lands other than the&rsquo; capital fief for some time followed the old pre-Conquest rule of descent. Thus in the socalled &ldquo;Laws of Henry I.&rdquo; the lands other than the capital fief, and in Glanvill, who wrote in the time of Henry II., socage lands, if anciently partible (antiquitus div-i sum), were divided among all the sons equally. But by the time of Bracton (Henry III.) the course of descent of lands held by military service had so far


 * 1&rdquo; The relation of vassalage, originally personal became annexed to the tenure of land &ldquo; (Palgrave, Rise and Progress of Ihe English Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 505).


 * It is a disputed point whether the manor organization existed before the Conquest; but its full development seems to have been later than that event.


 * Frankalmoign was not always regarded as a distinct tenure. Thus Littleton (~ ITS) says that all that is not tenure in chivalry is tenure in socage. prevailed that, though it was a question of fact whether the land was partible or not, if there was no evidence either way descent to the eldest son was presumed. Relics of the old custom still remain in the case of gavelkind. The military tenant was subject to the feudal incidents, from which the tenant in socage was exempt. These incidents, especially wardship and ma&rsquo;rriage, were often oppressive. Alienation of lands by will, except in a few favoured districts, became impossible; alienation inter vivos was restrained in one direction in the interests of the heir, in another in the interests of the lord. At the time of Glanvill a tenant had a greater power of alienation over land which he had purchased (terra acquietata) than over land which he had inherited. But by the time of Bracton the heir had ceased to have any interest in either kind of land. The lords were more successful. It was enacted by Magna Carta that a free man should not give or sell so much of his land as to leave an amount insufficient to perform his services to his lord. In spite of this provision, the rights of the lords were continually diminished by subinfeudation until the passing of the Statute of Quia Emptores. Alienation by a tenant in chief of the crown without licence was a ground of forfeiture until 1 Edw. III. st. 2, c. 12, by which a fine was substituted. The modes of conveyance at this time were only two, feoffment with livery of seisin for corporeal hereditaments, grant for incorporeal hereditaments. Livery of seisin, though public, was not officially recorded like the old English transfer of property. The influence of local custom upon the land law must have become weakened after the circuits of the judges of the King&rsquo;s Court were established by Henry II. Jurisdiction. over litigation touching the freehold was taken away from the lord&rsquo;s courts by 15 Ric. II. c. I2.


 * The common law as far as it dealt with real estate had in the main assumed its present aspect by the reign of Henry III. The changes which have been made since that date have been chiefly due to the action of equity and legislation, the latter sometimes interpreted by the courts in a manner very different from the intention of parliament. The most important influence of equity has been exercised in mortgage and trusts in the doctrine of specific performance of contracts concerning real estate, and in relief from forfeiture for breach of covenant.


 * History of Real Estate Legislaiion.&mdash;The reign of Edward I. is notable for three leading statutes, all passed in the interests of the superior lords. The Statute of Mortmain (~ Edw. I. St. 2, c. 13) ~s the first of a long series directed against the acquisition of land by religious and charitable corporations. The statute De Donis Conditionalibus (13 Edw. I. c. I) forbade the alienation of estates granted to a man and the heirs of his body, which before the statute became on the birth of an heir at once alienable (except in the case of gifts in frankmarriage), and so the lord lost his escheat. The statute Quia Emptores (18 Edw. I. c. I) preserved those rights of the lords which were up to that time subject to be defeated by subinfeudation, by enacting that in any alienation of lands the alienee should hold them of the same lord of the fee as the alienor.4 Since 1290 it has been impossible to create an estate in fee-simple to be held of a mesne lord, or to reserve a rent upon a grant of an estate in fee (unless in the form of a rent-charge), or to create a new manor. The statute, however, does not bind the c-rown. The practical effect of the statute was to make the transfer of land thenceforward more of a commercial and less of a feudal transaction. The writ of elegit was introduced by the Statute of Westminster II. in 1285 as a creditor&rsquo;s remedy over real estate. It has, however, been considerably modified by subsequent legislation. From 1290 to the reign of Henry VIII., there is no statute of the first importance dealing with real estate. The reign of Henry VIII., like the reign of Edward I., is signalized by three acts, the effects of which continue to this day. The one which has had the most lasting influence in law is the Statute of Uses, 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (see C0NvEYANcINO; TRUST). The Statute of Uses was intended to provide against secrecy of sales of land, and as a necessary sequel to it an act of the same Tenants in chief of the crown were liable to a fine on alienation until 12 Car. II~ c year (27 Hen. VIII. c. 16) enacted that all bargains and sales of land should be duly enrolled. Bargain and sale was a form of equitable transfer which had for some purposes superseded the common law feoffment. It applied only to estates of inheritance and not to terms of years. The unforeseen effect of 27 Hen. VIII. c. 16 was to establish as the ordinary form of conveyance until 1841 the conveyance by lease and release.&rsquo; Uses having become legal estate by the Statute of Uses, and therefore no longer devisable, 32 Hen. VIII c. I (explained by 34 & 35 Hen. VIII.


 * c. 5) was passed to remedy this inconvenience. It is still law as to wills made before 1838 (see WILL). In the reign of Elizabeth the acts of 13 Eliz. c. 5 and 27 Eliz. c. 4 avoided fraudulent conveyances as against all parties and voluntary conveyances as against subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration. Early in the reign of Charles II. the act of 1661 (12 Car. II. c. 24) turned all the feudal tenures (with the exception of frankalmoign and grand serjeanty) into tenure by free and common socage and abolished the feudal incidents. The Statute of Frauds (29 Car. II. c. 3) contained provisions that certain leases and assignments, and that all agreements and trusts relating to land, should be in writing (see FRAUD). The land registries of Middlesex and Yorkshire date from the reign of Anne (see LAND REGISTRATION). Devises of land for charitable purposes were forbidden by the Mortmain Act (9 Geo. II. c. 36). In the next reign the first general Inclosure Act was passed, 41 Geo. III. c. 109 (see COMMoNs). In the reign of William IV. were passed the Prescription, Limitation and Tithe Commutation Acts; fines and recoveries were abolished and simpler modes of conveyance substituted by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74; and the laws of inheritance and dower were amended by 3 & 4 Will. IV. cc. 105, 106. In the reign of Victoria there was a vast mass of legislation dealing with real estate in almost every conceivable aspect. At the immediate beginning of the reign stands the W&rsquo;ills Act. The transfer of real estate was simplified by 8 & 9 Vict. C. 106 and by the Conveyancing Acts of 1881 and 1882. Additional powers of dealing with settled estates were given by the Settled Estates Act 1856, later by the Settled Estates Act I877, and the Settled Land Act 1882. Succession duty was levied for the first time on freeholds in 1853. The strictness of the Mortmain Act has been relaxed in favour of gifts and sales to public institutions of various kinds, such as schools, parks and museums. The period of limitation was shortened for most purposes from twenty to twelve years by the Real Property Limitation Act 1874. Several acts were passed dealing with the enfranchisement and commutation of copyholds and the preservation of commons and open spaces. The Naturalization Act 28-70 enabled aliens to hold and transfer land in England. The Felony Act 1870, abolished forfeiture of real estate on conviction for felony. The Agricultural Holdings Acts 1883 and 1900, and other acts, gave the tenant of a tenancy within. the acts a general right to compensation for improvements, substituted a year&rsquo;s notice to quit for the six months&rsquo; notice previously necessary, enlarged the tenant&rsquo;s right to fixtures, and limited the amount of distress. By the Intestate Estates Act 1884 the law of escheat was extended to incorporeal hereditaments and equitable estates. Among other subjects which have been dealt with by legislation in the I9th century may be mentioned land transfer, registration, mortgage, partition, excambion, fixtures, taking of land in execution, declaration of title and apportionment. Hardly a year passes in which the land law is not altered to a greater or less degree.


 * Real estate - at the present day is either legal or equitable, a difference resting mainly upon historical grounds. The following observations apply in general to both kinds of estate. The usua classification of interests in real estate regards either the extent the time or the mode of enjoyment. The division accordinl to the extent is in the first instance into corporeal and incorporea hereditaments, a division based upon the Roman law division o res into corporales and incorporates, and open to the same objection From the reign of Edward IV. at latest up to the Fines am


 * Recoveries Act of 1833 fines and recoveries were also recognized a a means of conveyance. They are so regarded in &lsquo;the Statute of Uses. that it is unscientific as co-ordinating subjects of rights with the rights themselves.2 Corporeal hereditaments, says Blackstone, &ldquo;consist of such as affect the senses, such as may be seen and&rsquo; handled by the body; incorporeal are not the objects of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation.&rdquo; Corporeal hereditaments are all necessarily freehold;i an interest in land less than freehold, such as a term of years, is personalty only. There was no room for such an interest in the feudal gradation of tenure; it was regarded as a mere personal contract and was incapable of the incidents of tenure. By the Conveyancing Act 1881 the residue of a long term of years could in certain cases be enlarged into the fee-simple. A copyhold is in strict law only a tenancy at the will of the lord. Estates of freehold are either estates for life or in fee (called also estates of inheritance), the latter being in fee-tail or in fee-simple. An estate for life may be, either for the life of the tenant or for the life of another person, the latter called an estate pur autre vie. The former kind of estate includes estates of dower and curtesy. An estate in fee is called a fee simply, an obvious sign of its feudal origin. Estates tail are either general or special, the latter being in tail male or (rarely) in tail female. There may also be a quasientail of an estate pur autre vie. An estate in fee-simple is the largest estate known to English law. Its ordinary incidents are an oath of fealty (never exacted), escheat, and (in a manor) suit of the court baron, and occasionally a small quit-rent and relief. All these are obviously relics of the once important feudal incidents. Incorporeal hereditaments consist chiefly, if not wholly, of rights in alieno solo. They are divided by Joshua Williams (Real Property, pt. ii.) into (I) reversions, remainders and executory interests, (2) hereditaments purely incorporeal, the last being either appendant, appurtenant or in gross. Examples are profits a prendre (such as rights of common), easements (such as rights of way),4 seigniories, advowsons, rents, tithes, titles of honour, offices, franchises. Before 1845 corporeal hereditaments were said to lie in livery, incorporeal in grant. But by the Real Property Act 1845 all corporeal hereditaments are, as regards the conveyance of the immediate freehold thereof, to be deemed to lie in grant as well as in livery. With regard to the time of enjoyment, estates are either in possession or in expectancy&mdash;that is, in reversion or remainder or executory interests (see REMAINDER). With regard to the mode of enjoyment, estates are either joint, in common, in coparcenary or in severalty.


 * Exceptional - Tenures.&mdash;It has been already stated that there are still to be found survivals of the old pre-Conquest customary law. They are found both in the tenure and in the conveyance of land. The only customs of which judicial notice is taken are gavelkind (q.v.) and borough-English (q.v.). Any other local customs, as in manors, must be proved &lsquo;by evidence. The tenures of frankalmoign and grand serjeanty were specially preserved by 12 Car. II. c. 24.


 * Title.—This is the name given to the mode of acquisition of rights over real estate. Title may arise either by alienation, voluntary or involuntary, or by succession. Voluntary alienation is either inter vivos or by will. The former branch is practically synonymous with conveyance, whether by way of sale, settlement, mortgage or otherwise. As a general rule alienation of real estate inter vivos must be by deed since 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106. Since that act a deed of grant has superseded the old forms of feoffment and lease and release. Considerable alterations in the direction of shortness and simplicity have been made in the law of transfer of real estate by the Conveyancing Acts 1881, 1882 and tie Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897. The word &ldquo;grant&rdquo; is no lon~er necessary for a conveyance, nor are the old words of limitation heirs&rdquo; and &ldquo;heirs of the body.&rdquo; It is sufficient to use the words &ldquo;in fee-simple,&rdquo; &ldquo; in tail,&rsquo;&rsquo; &lsquo;&lsquo;in tail male,&rdquo; &ldquo;in tail female.&rdquo; Many provisions usually inserted in deeds, such as covenants for title by a beneficial owner and powers of appointment of new trustees, obtain statutory sanction. Forms of mortgage, conveyance&rsquo; and settlement are appended to the act. The Solicitors&rsquo; Remuneration Act 1881 was passed as a necessary sequel to the Conveyancing Act, and the remuneration of solicitors now stands upon a different and more satisfactory basis. For acquisition by will and succession, see WILL; INHERITANCE. Involuntary alienation is by bankruptcy (q.v.) and by other means of enforcing the rights of creditors over land, such as distress or execution. It may also arise by the exercise by the state of its right of eminent domain for public purposes, as under the Lands Clauses and other acts.i


 * 2 In spite of this objection the division is adopted by the legisla ture; see, for instance, the Intestate Estates Act 1884. In the category of corporeal hereditaments are also incluciec certain accessories to corporeal hereditaments proper, such a~ growing crops, fixtures, title-deeds, &c. It should be noticed that an easement in gross cannot exist. The right of the state to contribution from land for revenui purposes and to stamp duties on deeds perhaps falls under tht head. These imposts are really involuntary alienations of par of the profit of the land.

You will also notice that real estate is just a part of Real property the more major category bein real property, not real estate according to the 1911 encycl,[sic] they are not the same thing as well. We must fix this problem. Alex756 01:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Source requested
"The term personal property is also used with meanings that have no connection to the above. Specifically, Marxism and Anarchism draw a distinction between personal property and private property." ..and the rest of the section that is based on that. Source? RJII 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on a source for this. I'm not sure, but it looks like someone made it up off the top of their head. RJII 01:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it is perfectly consistent with the views of anarchists (of the libertarian socialist variety, at least), and the views of communists regarding the form of the communist society they ultimately wish to create. I will look for definite sources, however. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I found this: http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Property.html and modified the section accordingly. I don't know who wrote it or if it counts for anything. It looks like the writer is defining "personal property" the way Proudhon defined "possession" when it came to natural resources. I don't know if it's just one guy with this definition or whether there are any authoritative sources on this. It's not standard among anarcho-communists. For example, this CNT-FIA pamphlet urging anarchist revolution: "To the people. The CNT and FAI call everybody to armed revolt. The hour of revolution has struck and the moment is here. We stand ready to make anarcho-communism a reality. Personal property is abolished, and all wealth will be collectivized..." RJII 16:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not acceptable to just source it to somebody's website. If you can pull that definition directly from the sources quoted by that website, then we'll have something verifiable; until then, I've deleted the section. -- nae'blis 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal estate
I created a redirect from the above to this article. If anyone feels this is incorrect feel free to expand the above link into an article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Requested
Can someone clarify this more? ''Accountants also distinguish personal property from real property because personal property can be depreciated faster than improvements (while land is not depreciable at all). It is an owner's right to get tax benefits for chattel, and there are businesses that specialize in appraising personal property, or chattel.'' I find this part confusing; surely both in economic terms and in real-life, real property also often depreciates. I don't understand this part, can someone clarify what they mean by depreciate here, because they don't mean the economic definition that is linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.12 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chattel
As chattel redirects here there are probably extra areas that need to be covered - for example the use of the term chattel to refer to slaves, which I think traces back to Abolitionism. --86.179.186.239 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From Online Etymology, "chattel (n.) early 13c., chatel "property, goods," from Old French chatel "chattels, goods, wealth, possessions, property; profit; cattle," from Late Latin capitale "property" (see cattle, which is the Old North French form of the same word). Application to slaves (1640s) is a rhetorical figure of abolitionists, etc.". See also Wikipedia page on Chattel marriage.Ermadog (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Maryland claim wrong?
I think the claim about Maryland is nonsense. As seen here: "There’s no such thing as a “Common Law” marriage in Maryland. It simply isn’t recognized.

That means by “Common Law” marriage laws, no such marriage requires any legal procedure to end, because the state of Maryland doesn’t recognize it in the first place. There are no marriage requirements for it. Nothing.

However….

Maryland does recognize a “Common Law” marriage in Maryland if it was established in another state that recognizes those types of marriages." http://marriage.laws.com/common-law-marriage-maryland Maryland does not establish or recognize Common Law marriage, it only recognizes this when done out of the state in a state that does recognize it. Thus a women does not become personal property of a men when married or engaged under Maryland law.

Person vs. thing
See the second bullet point in the section "Personal versus private property". This: "Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g., artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts, seas, etc." puzzles me: artifacts, factories, etc, are things not persons. 31.52.252.177 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume it is referring to the person who is denied access or use of the property, but I agree it is not well explained. Iapetus (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived
Makes it sound like other kinds of property are not social relationships between the owners and the persons deprived. Exclusion is always a reality. Some users and uses will be excluded, no matter what arrangement we choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.208 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Life_%28album%29?wprov=sfla1q
@ 103.111.225.183 (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)