The register of a title contains an indication that the land was once the customary property of the manor and is subject to rights, which remain impreiste. What does this mean in practice? Is there any research that a buyer can carry out to reveal the existence of such rights and is it possible to take out insurance against the possibility of exercising them? Property rights – Customary law A custom is a special rule which, actually or presumably, has acquired since time immemorial in a particular place and has acquired the force of law in that place, although it violates or is incompatible with the general customary law of the Reich. The most widespread customs encountered in modern practice at least until 1926 were those related to manors. The rights, powers, and duties of the lord and tenants, estates, and condominiums of a manor were regulated to a large extent by special customs, which differed from the general common law of England and often varied from manor to manor. These customs regulated how land was enjoyed in the manor, the power and manner in which seigneurial lands could be alienated, and the course of decentralization of these lands after the death of the owner. They had the same authority as the general common law of England and the judicial opinion is just as binding on the facts which a judge must establish, either on the basis of his general knowledge of those facts or on the basis of investigations which he himself must carry out in order to obtain his own information from sources to which he must refer1. FRE 201(f) states that the effect of judicial knowledge is different in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, the acknowledged fact is therefore conclusively proven. In criminal proceedings, the accused has the right to contest any fact that may incriminate him.
Therefore, judicial sensation would simply allow the jury to reach the conclusion noted by the court, but would not require that result, and would not prevent the defence from adducing evidence to rebut the established fact. If a court takes note of a particular fact in court, the parties do not have to prove the fact in court. Normally, the facts of a case must be presented to the judge or jury through testimony or hard evidence. However, if every fact in a case were to be proven by such a presentation, the worst-case scenario would take weeks. In order to avoid burdening the judicial system, all legislators have adopted judicial rules that allow a court to accept generally known facts without requiring evidence from the parties. In the United States, Article II of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) deals with judicial notices to federal courts, and this article is widely copied by U.S. states. Article II of the ERF consists of a single rule, Article 201. [3] FRE 201 covers judicial publication of facts, i.e. those concerning the parties to proceedings, but not legislative facts which are of a general nature.
[3] [4] In New South Wales, facts that “cannot reasonably be disputed” can be found in court. [10] This may include, for example, the location of known geographic features. However, both parties must be informed of the bailiff`s intention to rely on the information. [11] A court may “become aware of a fact by the courts” and thus presume its veracity for the purposes of the current proceeding if it is “generally known” or can be established “from sources the accuracy of which cannot reasonably be doubted.” As soon as judicial knowledge takes place, the fact shall be deemed to be proved for the purposes of the proceedings. A court may, of its own motion or at the request of a party, issue judicial opinions, even if these are not formally supported by evidence. The means by which the court may consider certain facts to be proven without hearing evidence. Well-known facts (i.e., generally known issues) may be considered in court without an inquiry. Some other facts (e.g., issues that can be easily verified in a standard book and are reasonably indisputable) may be established in court after inquiry. In Mel Mermelstein v. 1981 Institute for Historical Review, the Los Angeles County Supreme Court noted that “Jews were gassed in the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland in the summer of 1944.” [9] Rule 201 requires the trial court must, at the request of one of the parties, become aware of a well-known fact if information proving the fact is provided to it.
