Front Page Titles (by Subject) CHAPTER XIII.: OF THE TITLE TO THINGS REAL, IN GENERAL. - Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 1
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Also in the Library:
CHAPTER XIII.: OF THE TITLE TO THINGS REAL, IN GENERAL. - Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 1 
Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. Notes selected from the editions of Archibold, Christian, Coleridge, Chitty, Stewart, Kerr, and others, Barron Field’s Analysis, and Additional Notes, and a Life of the Author by George Sharswood. In Two Volumes. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1893). Vol. 1 - Books I & II.
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
OF THE TITLE TO THINGS REAL, IN GENERAL.
The foregoing chapters having been principally employed in defining the nature of things real, in describing the tenures by which they may be holden, and in distinguishing the several kinds of estate or interest that may be had therein; I now come to consider, lastly, the title to things real, with the manner of acquiring and losing it.
A title is thus defined by Sir Edward Coke:(a) —Titulus est justa causa possidendi id quod nostrum est: or, it is the means whereby the owner of lands hath the just possession of his property.
There are several stages or degrees requisite to form a complete title to lands and tenements. We will consider them in a progressive order.
I. The lowest and most imperfect degree of title consists in the mere naked possession, or actual occupation of the estate, without any apparent right, or any shadow or pretence of right, to hold and continue such possession. This may happen, when one man invades the possession of another, and by force or surprise turns him out of the occupation of his lands; which is termed a disseisin, being a deprivation of that actual seisin, or corporal freehold of the lands, which the tenant before enjoyed. Or it may happen, that after the death of the ancestor and before the entry of **196]the heir, or after the death of a particular tenant and before the entry of him in remainder or reversion, a stranger may contrive to get possession of the vacant land, and hold out him that had a right to enter. In all which cases, and many others that might be here suggested, the wrongdoer has only a mere naked possession, which the rightful owner may put an end to, by a variety of legal remedies, as will more fully appear in the third book of these commentaries. But in the mean time, till some act be done by the rightful owner to devest this possession and assert his title, such actual possession is, prima facie, evidence of a legal title in the possessor; and it may, by length of time, and negligence of him who hath the right, by degrees ripen into a perfect and indefeasible title.1 And, at all events, without such actual possession no title can be completely good.
II. The next step to a good and perfect title is the right of possession, which may reside in one man, while the actual possession is not in himself, but in another. For if a man be disseised, or otherwise kept out of possession, by any of the means before mentioned, though the actual possession be lost, yet he has still remaining in him the right of possession; and may exert it whenever he thinks proper, by entering upon the disseisor, and turning him out of that occupancy which he has so illegally gained. But this right of possession is of two sorts: an apparent right of possession, which may be defeated by proving a better; and an actual right of possession, which will stand the test against all opponents. Thus if the disseisor, or other wrongdoer, dies possessed of the land whereof he so became seised by his own unlawful act, and the same descends to his heir; now, by the common law the heir hath obtained an apparent right, though the actual right of possession resides in the person disseised; and it shall not be lawful for the person disseised to devest this apparent right by mere entry or other act of his own, but only by an action at law:(b) for, until the contrary be proved by legal demonstration, the law will rather presume the right to **197]reside in the heir whose ancestor died seised, than in one who has no such presumptive evidence to urge in his own behalf. Which doctrine in some measure arose from the principles of the feodal law, which, after feuds became hereditary, much favoured the right of descent; in order that there might be a person always upon the spot to perform the feodal duties and services;(c) and therefore when a feudatory died in battle, or otherwise, it presumed always that his children were entitled to the feud, till the right was otherwise determined by his fellow-soldiers and fellow-tenants, the peers of the feodal court. But if he, who has the actual right of possession, puts in his claim, and brings his action within a reasonable time, and can prove by what unlawful means the ancestor became seised, he will then by sentence of law recover that possession, to which he hath such actual right.2 Yet, if he omits to bring this his possessory action within a competent time, his adversary may imperceptibly gain an actual right of possession, in consequence of the other’s negligence. And by this, and certain other means, the party kept out of possession may have nothing left in him, but what we are next to speak of; viz.
III. The mere right of property, the jus proprietatis, without either possession or even the right of possession. This is frequently spoken of in our books under the name of the mere right, jus merum; and the estate of the owner is in such cases said to be totally devested, and put to a right.(d) A person in this situation may have the true ultimate property of the lands in himself: but by the intervention of certain circumstances, either by his own negligence, the solemn act of his ancestor, or the determination of a court of justice, the presumptive evidence of that right is strongly in favour of his antagonist; who has thereby obtained the absolute right of possession. As, in the first place, if a person disseised, or turned out of possession of his estate, neglects to pursue his remedy within the time limited by law: by this means the disseisor or his heirs gain the actual right of possession: *[*198for the law presumes that either he had a good right originally, in virtue of which he entered on the lands in question, or that since such his entry he has procured a sufficient title; and, therefore, after so long an acquiescence, the law will not suffer his possession to be disturbed without inquiring into the absolute right of property. Yet still, if the person disseised or his heir hath the true right of property remaining in himself, his estate is indeed said to be turned into a mere right; but, by proving such his better right, he may at length recover the lands. Again, if a tenant in tail discontinues his estate-tail, by alienating the lands to a stranger in fee, and dies; here the issue in tail hath no right of possession, independent of the right of property: for the law presumes prima facie that the ancestor would not disinherit, or attempt to disinherit, his heirs, unless he had power so to do; and therefore, as the ancestor had in himself the right of possession, and has transferred the same to a stranger, the law will not permit that possession now to be disturbed, unless by showing the absolute right of property to reside in another person. The heir therefore in this case has only a mere right, and must be strictly held to the proof of it, in order to recover the lands. Lastly, if by accident, neglect, or otherwise, judgment is given for either party in any possessory action, (that is, such wherein the right of possession only, and not that of property, is contested,) and the other party hath indeed in himself the right of property, this is now turned to a mere right; and upon proof thereof in a subsequent action, denominated a writ of right, he shall recover his seisin of the lands.3
Thus, if a disseisor turns me out of possession of my lands, he thereby gains a mere naked possession, and I still retain the right of possession, and right of property. If the disseisor dies, and the lands descend to his son, the son gains an apparent right of possession; but I still retain the actual right both of possession and property. If I acquiesce for thirty years, without bringing any action to recover possession of the lands, the son gains the actual right of possession, and I retain **199]nothing but the mere right of property. And even this right of property will fail, or at least it will be without a remedy, unless I pursue it within the space of sixty years. So also if the father be tenant in tail, and alienes the estate-tail to a stranger in fee, the alienee thereby gains the right of possession, and the son hath only the mere right or right of property. And hence it will follow, that one man may have the possession, another the right of possession, and a third the right of property. For if a tenant in tail enfeoffs A. in fee-simple, and dies, and B. disseises A.; now B. will have the possession, A. the right of possession, and the issue in tail the right of property: A. may recover the possession against B.; and afterwards the issue in tail may evict A., and unite in himself the possession, the right of possession, and also the right of property In which union consists,
IV. A complete title to lands, tenements, and hereditaments. For it is an ancient maxim of the law,(e) that no title is completely good, unless the right of possession be joined with the right of property; which right is then denominated a double right, jus duplicatum, or droit droit.(f) And when to this double right the actual possession is also united, when there is, according to the expression of Fleta,(g)juris et seisinæ conjunctio, then, and then only, is the title completely legal.4
[(a) ] 1 Inst. 345.
[1 ] In general, a person in actual possession of real property cannot be ousted, unless the party claiming can establish some well-founded title; for it is a general rule, governing in all actions of ejectment, (the proper proceeding to recover possession of an estate,) that the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, and of course he cannot in general found his claim upon the insufficiency of the defendant’s, (5 T. R. 110, n. 1. 1 East, 246. 11 East, 488. 3 M. & S. 516;) for possession gives the defendant a right against every person who cannot show a sufficient title, and the party who would change the possession must therefore first establish a legal title. Id. ibid. 4 Burr. 2487. 2 T. R. 634. 7 T. R. 47. And this rule, it is said, prevails even if a stranger who has no colour of title should evict a person who has been in possession short of twenty years but who has not a strict legal title. 2 T. R. 749. 1 East, 246. 2 East, 469. 13 Ves. Jr. 119. But, according to Allan vs. Rivington, 2 Saund. 111, a., and 4 Taunt. 548, n. a., a prior occupancy is a sufficient title against a wrongdoer; but it is observed in a note to the first case that this is contrary to the general use, and it is suggested that there is a mistake in terms. At all events, a person who is let into possession by a landlord cannot after the expiration of the tenancy put the plaintiff to prove his title in an action of ejectment, or dispute the same. 2 Bla. R. 1250. 7 T. R. 488. 4 M. & S. 347.—Chitty.
[(b) ] Litt. 385.
[(c) ] Gilb. Ten. 18.
[2 ] It has recently been enacted that no descent, cast, or discontinuance which shall have happened after the 31st day of December, 1833, shall defeat any right of entry for the recovery of land. 3 & 4 W. IV. c. 17, s. 39.—Stewart.
[(d) ] Co. Litt. 345.
[3 ] But a writ of right is now abolished by the 3 & 4 W. IV. c. 27, s. 36; and by the same act (s. 2) one period of limitation is established for all lands and rents, it being enacted that after the 31st of December, 1833, no person shall make an entry or distress, or bring an action to recover any land or rent, but within twenty years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, shall have first accrued to some person through whom he claims, or if such right shall not have accrued to any person through whom he claims, then within twenty years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, shall have first accrued to the person making or bringing the same. Persons under the disabilities of infancy, lunacy, coverture, or beyond seas, and their representatives, are allowed ten years from the termination of their disability or death, (s. 16;) but no entry, action, or distress shall be brought beyond forty years after the right of action accrued, (s. 17.)—Stewart.
The effect of the statute 3 & 4 W. IV. c. 27 is to do away with this multiplicity of distinctions. A man may now have either the bare possession of land without the right of property, or he may have the right of property without possession, or he may have possession and right of property united. The statute which has been just mentioned, and which was passed for the “limitation of actions and suits relating to real property, and for simplifying the remedies for trying rights thereto,” enacts (s. 35) that at the determination of the period which it limits for making an entry, or a distress, or bringing a quare impedit, (which is the remedy for the recovery of an advowson,) or other action or suit, the right and title of the person who might within the time limited have had such remedies for the recovery of land, rent, or advowsons, shall be extinguished; and to recover that which has ceased to have any existence, no remedy can remain. In this point the present statute differs from the earlier limitation acts; for they barred the remedies only, without destroying the right.—Kerr.
[(e) ] Mirr. l. 2, c. 27.
[(f) ] Co. Litt. 266. Bract. l. 5, t. 3, c. 5.
[(g) ]L. 3, c. 15, 5.
[4 ] The mere student may be misled by the use of the term “actual possession” all through this chapter. The author means only possession of the freehold which a man may have, either by his own personal occupation or that of his lessee for years or at will.—Coleridge.