Definition
A "to uses" covenant is a conveyancing device by which a grantor, under the Statute of Uses (1535), transfers a legal estate to one party for the benefit of — that is, "to the use of" — another. In practice, the covenant operated as a mechanism to shift equitable title into legal title by raising a use, which the Statute of Uses then executed, vesting the legal estate in the cestui que use (the party for whose benefit the use was declared).
The phrase captures the operative words of the conveyance: a feoffment or covenant "to A to uses" signaled that A held not for himself alone, but for purposes declared by the instrument. The Statute of Uses collapsed the distinction between the legal and equitable estates in such cases, making the beneficiary the legal owner without the need for a separate conveyance.
Two critical characteristics distinguish the "to uses" covenant from ordinary covenants:
1. It is not enforceable as a covenant broken. A party cannot bring an action for breach of covenant on it — it operates as a conveyancing mechanism, not as a contractual promise giving rise to damages.
2. The consideration required to support it is relational — either by blood (consanguinity) or by marriage. Pecuniary consideration alone was historically insufficient.
Common Confusion
"To uses" is easily confused with the broader doctrine of uses generally, or with the trust, which superseded uses in most practical contexts after the Statute of Uses failed to eliminate equitable interests entirely. The "to uses" covenant is specifically the instrument of conveyance — the mechanism that triggers the statute — not the doctrine itself. Researchers should also distinguish this device from a bargain and sale deed, which raised a use through consideration rather than through a covenant of this type.
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs almost entirely to historical English property law and its early American reception. Researchers will encounter it primarily in:
- Pre-20th-century treatises on real property conveyancing, particularly those dealing with the Statute of Uses and its American analogs
- Historical title chains and deed records where archaic conveyancing language survived well into the 19th century in some American jurisdictions
- Cases and materials addressing the distinction between legal and equitable title in states that adopted or declined to adopt the Statute of Uses
The requirement of blood or marriage consideration — not money — is a research trap. In a modern context, a researcher unfamiliar with the doctrine might assume any consideration suffices, but a "to uses" covenant unsupported by relational consideration could be void or ineffective as a conveyance under historical doctrine.
The device is largely obsolete in modern American practice, displaced by fee simple deeds, statutory warranty deeds, and trust instruments. However, it remains relevant for researchers working in:
- Colonial and early republic land records
- Equity jurisdiction history
- The doctrinal lineage of the modern trust
The corpus connections here run primarily through property law history. The Statute of Uses is the conceptual anchor; the "to uses" covenant is its mechanical expression in the deed.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's entry is concise and technically accurate. It correctly identifies the two defining characteristics: (1) the covenant's inutility as a basis for an action of covenant broken, and (2) the restriction of valid consideration to relationship by blood or marriage, citing Washburn's Real Property and Challis's Real Property as secondary authorities.
Bouvier's analogy to ancient real covenants — covenants that ran with the land but did not generate personal liability for breach — is instructive. It situates the "to uses" covenant within a class of instruments that operated in rem rather than in personam, which explains why no action lay for breach.
What Bouvier does not address is the American reception problem: the Statute of Uses was not uniformly adopted in the American states, and some jurisdictions expressly rejected it or rendered it redundant by statute. Researchers relying solely on Bouvier's treatment may overestimate the uniform applicability of this device across American jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional Note
The Statute of Uses was an English statute and its force in American jurisdictions depended on reception statutes and judicial adoption. Several states, including New York, enacted their own statutory analogs; others effectively made the device redundant through simplified conveyancing statutes. Researchers should verify whether the relevant jurisdiction adopted the Statute of Uses before treating "to uses" doctrine as applicable.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry addresses the Statute of Uses or historical conveyancing by uses directly. The intellectual property, zoning, and land use entries in the corpus address "use" in wholly different legal contexts and are not relevant here.