" If the covenant of seizen runs with the land to a remote grantee, under the theory that subsequent deeds operate as an assignment of the chose in action that accrued to the first grantee, then there is no logical reason why the remote grantee, claiming by conveyance under the original grantee, cannot maintain the action whether or not he ever had actual possession of the land."
Words: 66
Commas: 4
I am not sure whether I am more frightened by the sentence, or by the fact that I understood it. Four months ago it would have meant nothing, but these days I read sentences like this all the time and hardly notice that they're almost complete jiberish. I suppose this is why, despite the fun we make of lawyers in our society, we still respetc them and encourage our children to go to law school.
3 comments:
Ha! and you kept correcting me for my comparitively puny non-congruent sentances in Lit last year! My twenty-three word sentances that only used about half that many overtly pompus vocabulary words positively shrivel by comparison to that fair monstrosity of lenguistical enigma. Heh, actually that last one was twenty-four, if you count the two hyphenated words as two. But that sentance more proves your point than my pathetic defence of my own eloquent turmoil, as heaven forbid I should end up writing like that in an essay for Lit class. Not only do I, but my new Lit teacher has a lot to thank you for.
This is Susan, by the way.
Wow. That was impressive. Welcome back Susan.
Heh, the funny part was that I didnt' intend the sentance to be monsterous at all, it just sort of turned out that way, so I decided to make the most of it. xD It's great to be in touch again!
-Susan
Post a Comment