Talk:Seisin

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does anyone know what the actual citation of this case is, or if this is the correct spelling of the names as it is listed in the article as Nebauer v Blind Trust [1965] 7 QB 365 however there has never been a 7th volume of the QB and I cannot find the case using the names given! If the correct citation cannot be found this incorrect one should be removed completely. Jonny1047 (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone proposed that this article be merged with livery of seisin two years ago and then neglected to introduce a discussion. I'm opening it now to see if anything happens. Personally, I disagree with the merger proposal, as although sometimes the phrase "livery of seisin" is used to refer to the concept of being seised of a property, its use in legal materials is generally restricted to references to the ancient custom. Specifically, the phrase is usually used to talk about how the old custom is outdated and meaningless. Thus the article on livery of seisin should discuss the custom, and be focused on historical matters, while the article on seisin may focus on current and historical issues (as the concept of seisin retains some currency; courts still say that the owner of a parcel of land is "seised" of the property). Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I suppose the merge. This page should discuss both the history and the current use, but I feel that there's not enough content for two pages, especially given how duplicative the pages will be. It's easier to maintain the quality if we stick to one page and make that page good. II | (t - c) 02:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Absolutely not. These are both enormously important legal history topics in their own rights. Livery of seisin refers to the ancient custom, of which there is extensive source material, though not all of it necessarily in modern English or

available in convenient, full text on the net sources. While there should be some significant reference to livery of seisin in the seisin article, the topic of seisin itself is so much more expansive than livery of seisin... it just wouldn't do livery of seisin justice to bury all reference to it in this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]