The Transformation of Trusts as a Legal Category, 1800–1914
- 1 January 1987
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Law and History Review
- Vol. 5 (2) , 303-350
- https://doi.org/10.2307/743890
Abstract
Sometimes we are least aware of that which most affects us. So it seems with respect to legal categories. Lawyers do not take legal categories very seriously today. But they should. Legal categories are central to legal reasoning; indeed it is almost impossible to imagine legal reasoning without the use of categories. Categorical thinking affects every area of law. In constitutional law, for example, equal protection analysis turns crucially on categories of affected interests. Specialists in landlord-tenant law debate whether the implied covenant of habitability is a property doctrine or a contract doctrine. And if the public/private distinction is dead, as some reports have suggested, it rules us yet from its grave. Legal categories are not simply housekeeping devices. They inhibit our imagination of what is acceptable, indeed, of what is possible. They take on a quality of givenness and thereby disempower us. We can retain control over categories, and ultimately over our own legal imagination, only by reminding ourselves that we have created them and are capable of remaking them.Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Legal Change and Legal Autonomy: Charitable Trusts in New York, 1777–1893Law and History Review, 1985
- The Legal Status of Women in Early America: A ReappraisalLaw and History Review, 1983
- Fifty Years of TrustsHarvard Law Review, 1936
- Classification of LawHarvard Law Review, 1924
- The Classification of Trusts as Express, Resulting, and ConstructiveHarvard Law Review, 1914
- Gifts for a Non-Charitable PurposeHarvard Law Review, 1902
- The Tripartite Division of TortsHarvard Law Review, 1894
- Divisions of LawHarvard Law Review, 1894
- Some Definitions and Questions in JurisprudenceHarvard Law Review, 1892
- The Failure of the "Tilden Trust"Harvard Law Review, 1892