The executor, although not a successor, is also authorized by law to seize the movable property of the estate by the provisions of article 918 of the Civil Code, which stipulates in part: “The executors are seized for the purpose of the execution of the will as legal custodians of the movable property of the estate and may also claim possession of it against the heir or legatee. It cannot therefore be said strictly that the heirs of rights and acts are seized, but rather of the exercise of these. Since the exercise of a right is an act of possession, seizure retains its precise meaning, the immediate transfer of possession of the right of succession, when the possession of rights and shares is only part of the universality and its exercise is only an effect of legal possession. It must therefore be concluded that the concept of attachment, that fictitious legal possession by which the successor in title immediately acquires the capacity necessary for the exercise of rights and acts of succession, remains intact in all its implications. The person seized of the matter may act; And conversely, those who can act are seized; That is the criterion. It is therefore argued that the provisions of the law do not affect seizure, but suspend it, since Jean J. stated: “In this case, does the law contain provisions that d6- the person to sue or be sued6 before having paid6 the estate tax or obtained a certificate that there is no duty payable? I don`t believe it. 8 Seizin is therefore a legal fiction given to all successors, with the exception of the irregular heir, by virtue of which, from the moment of the opening of the succession, the successor in title is regarded as the legitimate possession of all the property rights and acts which it encompasses, without any material concern. And even if he is not at all aware of his legacy. The heir seized is liable to an action and prosecution on the basis of his seizure and, in short, enjoys the same property as the author.
All the lands of his fief belonged to the lord. JiHe granted some parcels of it to his vassals, who received only a title known as the useful domain, an imperfect form of ownership and legal possession, which was still subject to the lord`s superior property, the Donaine Direct. The feudal system of land ownership is somewhat difficult to judge in an age of absolute private ownership, for no one in the system owned land in our sense except the lord. What he granted to his vassal was mainly possession for use, which can be described as property in law, but not in fact. “The origin of ] a seizure is restfe trfs obscure, and the most r6- ” 4 The first appearance of -the concept of cents have not r~ussi A `1lucider. Seizin, in the old French law, was during the thirteenth century. We are mentioned in a decree ~t of the Parliament of Paris in 1259, and in 1270 the Etablissements de Saint-Louis said: “Et li usages d`Orl~nois si est que li morz seize the lively.” 5 Where it began, three theories were put forward. Some say that the concept of seizure comes from Roman law.
However, others attribute it to the fact that the investiture of the heir necessary by fiction of the law and the aditio of the voluntary heir dealt only with the ownership of the inheritance. In Roman law, possession required two essential factors: material appropriation of property and intention to hold it as owner.7 Possession detached from reality was a legal impossibility. Neither heir was deprived by law of possession of property alone; Both still had to meet the two requirements of Roman possession. is passed on to the heir himself on the basis of the principle of succession. Article 596 of the Civil Code of Québec states: “Inheritance is the transfer of property and transferable rights and obligations of a person who has died by law or by will from a person to one or more persons.” All successors are immediate owners, including the irregular heir, but on the other hand, not all successors are immediately legitimate owners, as section 607 of the Code expressly requires that the irregular heir be taken into possession by a court. Seizin is therefore essentially synonymous with possession, a distinction underlined by our law in granting to the executor, who, unless he is also a legatee, never owns the property he manages. Jaubert said: “Another thing is the owner6t6, another thing is the referral”, 20 and he is supported by many others with whom this author willingly agrees. 21 alternative spellings are: seizin, seisin, sasin, seasin, sasing, seasing, sesin, seasin, sesine, seasine, seine, referral. [3] [4] [5] Transfers of ownership were originally made by symbolic transfer, by handing over a piece of land or a stone or similar object to the property itself, and then entering the “deed of transfer” in the local “Sasines register”.
The term “instrument of Sasine” was in fact the record of the event of the symbolic handing over of the property, as evidenced and recorded by a court official present for this purpose. [7] The present Sasinen on the land itself became superfluous by a law of 1845. The “instrument of the Sasines” was replaced by the beginning of transport with a “Warrant of Registration” by a law of 1858. Sasine`s last legal ceremony in Scotland took place in 2002, when Glenmorangie took over the land from St. Mary`s Chapel in Easter Ross from the Cadboll Trust. [2] And Beaudant puts it this way: “The hir~ditary referral is the hir~ditary referral, by the fact of the opening of the succession, of the one already in possession of transferring this possession to another. This is evidenced by the use of the word transport, which means a transfer. Therefore, the pre-1930 stage did not affect the seizure of the heir or legatee, who was still immediately endowed with legal possession of his inheritance, it only meant that he was “frozen” as security for payment until the duties were paid. In 1930, however, an attempt was made to expand the article to cover even transmission by death by amending the article as explained above and inserting the word transmission for the first time. But whatever the reason, confusion existed and still exists to some extent, and the school, which linked confiscation to property by not distinguishing between it and property, counted among its followers eminent jurists such as Pothier, Demolombe, Mourlon, and even Mignault. These men used the term seizin to represent both the transfer of ownership and the transfer of ownership, with Mourlon going so far as to postulate two different seizures, one for each trial. But this is not the case, because as Huc says: “.
the referral relates only to possession; The question of acquisition of the property~t6 remains 6trang&e.”` 7 This is what Laurent and Baudry repeat. The first states: “So the seizure concerns possession: therefore it is necessary to r6server this expression to mark the transmission of the posses- sion.” 1 8 And Baudry expresses the same thought: “We see that the maxim, the possession, and not the ownership of goods the dead seizes the alive is relative hr~ditaires”. 19 The executor is therefore deemed to be the holder of the movable property from the date of the testator`s death, so that he may successfully discharge his mandate. In other civil jurisdictions, such as France, Louisiana or Haiti, the codes provide for seizure of the executor only if it has been expressly granted by the testator in the will; Seizure is not only the result of the law.
