Understanding Constitutional Infirmity: Legal Weakness Explained

The phrase constitutional infirmity refers to any imperfection that renders a particular transaction void or incomplete. The phrase was first used in American jurisprudence in Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664. In a broader sense, the term infirmity refers to a state of being infirm, feeble, or frail, and can be used to describe physical or mental weakness, disease, or malady.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

The phrase was first used in American jurisprudence in Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664

The phrase "constitutional infirmity" was first used in American jurisprudence in Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664 (1829). This case dealt with the sale of land and the question of whether the seller, Nicholas Darnall, could convey a good title to the buyer, Le Grand.

The background of the case is as follows: Bennet Darnall, Nicholas Darnall's father, was a slave owner and the owner of several tracts of land in Maryland. In his will, dated August 4, 1810, Bennet Darnall devised certain lands to his son, Nicholas, who was also a slave. Bennet Darnall also referred to two deeds of manumission, dated 1805 and 1810, in which he intended to emancipate Nicholas and several other slaves upon his death. Bennet Darnall died in January 1814, and upon coming of age, Nicholas took possession of the property devised to him, including the land in question, Portland Manor.

In 1826, Nicholas Darnall entered into a contract to sell Portland Manor to Le Grand. However, doubts arose regarding the title to the land, as it was questioned whether Nicholas, being a minor at the time of his father's death, was capable of receiving manumission under Maryland law and thus had the right to inherit the property. Le Grand refused to make further payments and filed a suit, seeking an injunction on the ground that Darnall could not convey a good title.

The case of Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664, established the importance of ensuring that individuals involved in legal transactions, such as the sale of land, have the necessary capacity and legal authority to enter into such agreements. The phrase "constitutional infirmity" may have been used in this context to describe a weakness or flaw in the legal framework or the interpretation of the law, which led to the dispute over the validity of the land transaction.

It refers to any imperfection that makes a transaction void or incomplete

The phrase "constitutional infirmity" was first used in American jurisprudence in Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664. In a legal context, the term "infirmity" on its own is used to refer to any imperfection that makes a transaction void or incomplete. For example, if a deed drawn up to transfer land ownership contains an erroneous description of the land, there is an infirmity in the transaction.

The term "constitutional" is derived from the Latin "constitutionem", which means "character, constitution, disposition, nature; definition; point in dispute; order, regulation; arrangement, system". In the context of law, "constitutional" is used to refer to compliance with or validity under a legal or political constitution. For example, a court may rule that a statute is constitutional, or same-sex marriage may be ruled as unconstitutional.

Therefore, the phrase "constitutional infirmity" can be understood to refer to any imperfection or flaw in a legal or political constitution that renders it invalid or incomplete. This could include issues such as ambiguous or erroneous wording, or conflicts with other laws or regulations, that make the constitution unenforceable or in violation of established legal or political principles.

An example is when a deed to transfer land contains an erroneous description

The phrase "constitutional infirmity" was first used in American jurisprudence in Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664. It has since made its way into everyday usage.

Now, when it comes to deeds and property transfer, an erroneous description in the legal description of a deed can have significant consequences. For instance, let's consider a scenario where a deed to transfer land contains an incorrect legal description, describing the wrong parcel of land or failing to reflect all the land purchased in the sale.

This type of error can impact taxes, as lenders base loan approvals on a percentage of the property's appraised value, and footage mistakes can derail financing. Disputes may arise if the error is not addressed, and they can become complex issues. Inaccurate deeds can cause problems for subsequent owners as well, as errors in lot descriptions may be unknowingly passed on.

To correct such an error, a correction deed can be used. This type of deed references the original deed, noting the mistake and providing the accurate legal description. Both parties must be aware of the corrective action and agree to it; otherwise, a court order may be necessary. A court may order a deed reformation, where the court clerk is authorised to correct the deed. Alternatively, a quitclaim deed can be used to correct issues related to the property title, especially in cases without a monetary transaction, such as family matters. An Affidavit of Correction is another legal instrument used to fix errors or missing information on publicly recorded documents.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

It has recently been used more in everyday speech

The phrase "constitutional infirmity" was first used in American jurisprudence in Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664. In a legal context, the term "infirmity" refers to any imperfection that renders a transaction void or incomplete. For example, an erroneous description of land in a deed transferring ownership would constitute an infirmity in the transaction.

The phrase "constitutional infirmity" has recently been used more in everyday speech, likely due to its literal meaning. While the phrase may have originated in a legal context, it is now used by people outside of the legal profession to describe a range of issues or imperfections that affect a person, group, or system.

For instance, someone might say that a person's constitutional infirmity is their poor health or advanced age, which impairs their ability to carry out certain tasks or participate in certain activities. In politics, the phrase could be used to describe a flaw in the way a government or country is structured or operates, which could be seen as a weakness or deficiency.

The phrase "constitutional infirmity" has also been used in discussions about the interpretation and application of laws and legal principles. For example, a legal scholar might argue that a particular law or regulation is constitutionally infirm because it violates certain constitutional rights or principles. This usage of the phrase aligns more closely with its original legal context, but it still represents an expansion of its use beyond the specific legal cases for which it was first applied.

Overall, the phrase "constitutional infirmity" has taken on a life of its own outside of its original legal context, and its usage in everyday speech is likely to continue evolving and taking on new nuances over time.

It can be used to describe a person's state of being feeble or diseased

The phrase "constitutional infirmity" was first used in American jurisprudence in Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664. In general, the term "infirmity" refers to the state of being infirm, or feeble, and is often associated with disease, old age, and frailty.

In a legal context, the term "infirmity" takes on a more specific meaning. It refers to any imperfection that renders a particular transaction void or incomplete. For example, an erroneous description in a deed transferring land ownership would be considered an infirmity in the transaction.

When combined with the prefix "constitutional", the phrase "constitutional infirmity" likely refers to a person's inherent or fundamental state of being feeble or diseased. This could be a physical or mental condition that affects a person's ability to function or make decisions.

In a broader sense, "constitutional infirmity" could also refer to a weakness or flaw in a person's character or nature, indicating a lack of moral fibre or resolve. This usage would be in line with the root meaning of "constitution", which is derived from the Latin "cōnstitūtiō", meaning character, nature, or disposition.

Overall, the phrase "constitutional infirmity" appears to describe a deep-seated weakness or imperfection in a person, whether physical, mental, or moral, that may impact their ability to function, make decisions, or uphold certain values or principles.

Frequently asked questions