The 'Waste' Law

[robinlandseadel at comcast.net]

First time I've seen the Waste Law and I've been reading Pynchon since 1979, with plenty of sideways glances at other people's commentaries.
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "grladams at teleport.com" <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
> 
> 
>