{"title":"未来财产和托伦斯系统","authors":"Glen Anderson","doi":"10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since at least the seventeenth century, courts of equity have upheld the assignment of future property for valuable consideration. Despite this long lineage, however, there has been almost no scholarly analysis of how these principles might interact with the Torrens system. The present article addresses this deficiency. Generally, it argues that there are no reasons why principles of future property cannot be fully subsumed within the Torrens system.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Future Property and the Torrens System\",\"authors\":\"Glen Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since at least the seventeenth century, courts of equity have upheld the assignment of future property for valuable consideration. Despite this long lineage, however, there has been almost no scholarly analysis of how these principles might interact with the Torrens system. The present article addresses this deficiency. Generally, it argues that there are no reasons why principles of future property cannot be fully subsumed within the Torrens system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Deakin Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Deakin Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art726\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deakin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Since at least the seventeenth century, courts of equity have upheld the assignment of future property for valuable consideration. Despite this long lineage, however, there has been almost no scholarly analysis of how these principles might interact with the Torrens system. The present article addresses this deficiency. Generally, it argues that there are no reasons why principles of future property cannot be fully subsumed within the Torrens system.