3 ms·
Potentially significant bits from the above wikipedia page: The original transfer of the deed would not be valid because 'Such a deed, even if it did exist, wo
by drdeca 12y ago
Potentially significant bits from the above wikipedia page:
The original transfer of the deed would not be valid because
'Such a deed, even if it did exist, would have no legal standing. Under common law, the person receiving the property in question must have the legal capacity to receive it, and the property must be delivered to—and accepted by—the recipient.'
and ' Athens-Clarke County confirms that the tree is in the right-of-way, and is thus “accepted for care” by municipal authorities;'
however,
'Regarding Jackson’s deed, one writer noted at the beginning of the 20th century, “However defective this title may be in law, the public recognized it.”[13] In that spirit, it is the stated position of the Athens-Clarke County unified government that the tree, in spite of the law, does indeed own itself.[14]'
So, while if you wished to do this with some land you owned, and a tree, it probably would not be considered legally valid in the US (at the moment), but there might be a chance you could get it to be effectively the case?
- pluma 12y agoA tree can't give consent, ergo it can't be on the receiving end of a contract. That the public plays along has more to do with novelty and tradition than with a serious legal precedent. Saying that the tree de facto owns itself despite the lack of legal underpinning is like saying Emperor Norton was de facto the emperor of the United States because people accepted his fake money as legal tender and acknowledged his claims. Consider if Emperor Norton would have engaged in an armed conflict with the US government, for example. It'd be pretty obvious that he would be treated as an American citizen, not as a foreign head of state. Likewise if the Tree That Owns Itself's supposed legal status were ever at odds with the well-being of humans (to a degree that dwarfs its cultural value), it's pretty obvious who's side the courts would be on. At best, the tree could be treated as a corporation with the municipal government or the public acting on its behalf.