Definition
The Statute of Uses (27 Hen. 8, c. 10, 1536) was an Act of Parliament enacted in England under Henry VIII that transformed equitable interests called "uses" into legal estates. Before the statute, a landowner (feoffor) could convey land to a trusted party (feoffee to uses) to hold "to the use of" a third person (cestui que use), creating a beneficial interest enforceable in Chancery but invisible to common law courts. The statute "executed" the use — that is, it collapsed the distinction between the feoffee's legal title and the cestui que use's equitable interest, vesting full legal title directly in the beneficiary.
The practical effect was threefold. First, it attempted to eliminate the use as a device for separating legal and equitable ownership. Second, it cut off the feudal incidents — relief, wardship, escheat — that the Crown lost when land was held to uses, since Chancery did not enforce those obligations against the feoffee. Third, it inadvertently generated new conveyancing machinery: the bargain and sale, the covenant to stand seised, and the lease and release all emerged from lawyers working around or through the statute's execution mechanism.
The statute did not succeed in abolishing equitable interests entirely. Courts quickly recognized that a use upon a use — where A held to the use of B to the use of C — would not be executed by the statute as to the second use. This gap eventually became the foundation of the modern trust: by the seventeenth century, Chancery enforced the second use as a "trust," and the equitable concept that Henry VIII sought to destroy simply reconstituted itself under a new name.
---
Common Confusion
The Statute of Uses is frequently confused with the use itself. The use is the pre-1536 device; the Statute of Uses is the Parliamentary response to it. Researchers encountering "use" in pre-1536 sources are reading about the equitable arrangement; "use" in post-1536 sources may refer to the relic concept or, increasingly, to what courts began calling a trust. The statute's title can also mislead: it did not regulate or protect uses — it aimed to destroy them by executing them into legal title.
Do not confuse the Statute of Uses with the Statute of Wills (32 Hen. 8, c. 1, 1540), which was enacted four years later partly as a political concession after the Statute of Uses proved deeply unpopular with landowners who had relied on uses to devise real property (common law did not permit devise of freehold land). The two statutes are companions in the same legislative sequence, not synonyms.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The Statute of Uses is a pivot point in the entire history of Anglo-American property law. Researchers working in any of the following areas will encounter it as background or direct precedent:
Trust law. The modern trust is a direct descendant of the use upon a use that the Statute of Uses failed to execute. Any foundational trust law research in common law jurisdictions traces through this statute. Historical sources that treat "use" and "trust" as interchangeable after roughly 1660 are being imprecise; before that period, the distinction matters.
Conveyancing. The bargain and sale, the covenant to stand seised, the lease and release, and the shifting and springing executory interest are all products of the statute's execution mechanism. Seventeenth and eighteenth century conveyancing forms make no sense without understanding that the statute converted certain informal agreements into legal title transfers. American colonial and early republic conveyancing borrowed this machinery wholesale.
Future interests. Executory interests — interests that divest a prior estate or spring up in the future — owe their legal existence to the Statute of Uses. Before the statute, such interests could not exist at law; the statute's execution of uses allowed conveyancers to create shifting and springing interests that Chancery had previously handled. American future interests doctrine, including material in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers, cannot be traced without this foundation.
Chronological traps. Historical dictionaries and treatises cite the statute by its regnal year (27 Hen. 8, c. 10). Researchers unfamiliar with this citation form may fail to locate it. The statute was repealed in England by the Law of Property Act 1925, which modernized conveyancing, but it was never formally enacted in most American jurisdictions — rather, its principles were absorbed into common law doctrine brought over by colonists and then shaped by state courts. Some states enacted their own statutes of uses; New York's 1830 revision is a notable example that itself generated substantial litigation over whether American courts would follow English doctrine on uses upon uses.
Corpus navigation. Because both Black's and Rapalje & Lawrence direct readers to the entry for USE rather than providing a standalone entry, researchers searching historical dictionaries under "Statute of Uses" will need to cross-reference the USE entry in each source for the substantive doctrinal material. This is not an oversight — for much of the dictionary tradition, the statute was treated as inseparable from the doctrine it addressed.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's Law Dictionary and Rapalje & Lawrence decline to provide an independent entry, redirecting entirely to USE. This is consistent with the broader treatment in nineteenth-century legal reference literature, which folded the statute's effects into the general doctrine of uses and trusts rather than treating the statute as a freestanding subject. The implication for researchers is significant: to reconstruct the historical understanding of the Statute of Uses from these sources, one must read the USE entry in full, including all sub-entries.
Blackstone's Commentaries (Book II, Chapter 20) and Coke's commentary on Littleton remain the most authoritative pre-modern treatments. Lewin's Treatise on the Law of Trusts (first edition 1837) and Maitland's lectures on equity provide the transition from uses to trusts. These treatises will be more useful than the historical dictionaries for anyone conducting primary research on the statute's doctrinal effects.
What the historical dictionaries miss, or compress too heavily, is the statute's role in generating executory interests and its downstream effect on American conveyancing. Researchers relying solely on the USE entries in Black's or Rapalje & Lawrence will get doctrine but not context.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The Statute of Uses was never formally received as statute in most American states, but its common law principles traveled with the colonists and were applied by American courts throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The result is that American property law reflects the statute's effects — particularly the vocabulary and mechanics of executory interests and the use-upon-a-use trust — without always acknowledging the source. States with civil law influence (Louisiana) diverge substantially. New York's statutory revision of property law in the nineteenth century represents a conscious legislative effort to codify and modify what the Statute of Uses had produced at common law.
---