The 'Waste' Law

[grladams at teleport.com]

I'd like to know if these postings by our good Robinlandseadel and others
piling up in the inbox, if all these recent November mining up of google
book items are recent discoveries by the pynchon-list --or are these
rehashings of already known stuff? Am I witnessing a new angle of discovery
here??

Original Message:
-----------------
From:  robinlandseadel at comcast.net
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:00:02 +0000
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: The 'Waste' Law


The most obvious meaning for "The Crying of Lot 49" 
is the auctioning of property. Of course, under dust
 bowl circumstances. . . .

          Section 49. Who may commit Waste.

          Waste can only be committed by a person rightfully in 
          possetion of the property.. Under the early common 
          law only tenants of legal as distinguished from tenants 
          of conventional estates, were liable for waste. But the 
          common law was changed by the statute of Marlbridge. . . .

          . . . .Formerly in England, co-temant or a tenant in 
          common could not be held guilty of waste, but this 
          statute of Westminster II. In the United States 
          co-tenants are liable for waste, either by statute, 
          or independently of statutes.

Pynchon Vs. Stearns is mentioned on page 92 and 95, in the footnotes.

http://tinyurl.com/2gb8aa

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail