ALIENATIO - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

ALIENATIOAuthored

The Law Mind • 844 words

Definition

Alienatio is a Latin term drawn from Roman and feudal law meaning the transfer of ownership of property from one person to another. It encompasses any act by which a person conveys title or property rights to another, whether by sale, gift, exchange, or other recognized mode of transfer.

In Roman law, alienatio carried a precise technical meaning: the voluntary divestiture of ownership (dominium) in a thing, effected by the transferor's legal capacity and intent to pass title. The Digest extended the term to cover not only express transfers but also implied transfers arising through prescription or usucapio — the acquisition of title by long possession — treating the effect of such acquisition as equivalent to a transfer from the prior owner.

In feudal law, alienatio referred specifically to the transfer of a feudal tenure or holding, which carried special significance because the lord's consent was often required. Unauthorized alienation by a tenant could forfeit the tenure or trigger the lord's right of escheat or forfeiture.

Common Confusion

Alienatio should not be conflated with the broader English term alienation as used in modern property law. Alienation in modern usage refers to the general power of an owner to transfer property and is associated with the right to convey, the rule against restraints on alienation, and similar doctrines. Alienatio, as a Latin term of art encountered in historical legal sources, carries the specific Roman and feudal law freight described above. Researchers working with historical materials must be careful not to import modern alienation doctrine into contexts where alienatio appears, as the conceptual frameworks differ.

Alienatio also should not be confused with alienare (the verb form) or with the personal status concepts surrounding alien and alienage, which concern the legal condition of foreign persons rather than the transfer of property.

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers will encounter alienatio primarily in three contexts: translations and glosses of Roman law sources (Justinian's Institutes and Digest), medieval and early modern feudal law materials, and English legal treatises drawing on civilian or feudal learning.

The feudal dimension is the most significant trap. In feudal tenure documents and in commentators who synthesized Roman and feudal doctrine, alienatio was not a neutral act. The lord's consent requirement — the prohibition on subinfeudation or substitution without license — meant that alienatio carried legal consequences that bare English "alienation" language in a modern deed or instrument does not. Researchers using historical materials to trace property concepts should be attentive to whether the source is operating in a Roman law register (where alienatio is essentially neutral: any transfer of ownership) or a feudal register (where it is regulated and potentially subject to forfeiture).

Justinian's Seventh Novel is a key source referenced by Burrill. That novel uses the Greek equivalent (ἐκποίησις) and clarifies that alienatio in the Justinianic framework encompasses sale, gift, and exchange — a formulation that influenced later civilian and canon law commentators.

The usucapio dimension is often overlooked. Burrill flags that the Digest treats acquisitive prescription as a species of alienatio — meaning that in Roman law sources, the concept stretched beyond voluntary conveyance to encompass the legal effect of time-based title acquisition. This usage will not match any modern property law concept of "alienation" and can confuse researchers expecting the term to refer only to deliberate transfers.

Anderson's source material for this entry appears to have been captured mid-entry, redirecting to the law of aliens rather than alienatio proper. This is a useful reminder that historical dictionaries were organized alphabetically and that adjacent terms (alien, alienage, alienatio, alienate) sometimes blur at the edges of individual entries. Researchers relying on Anderson's for this term should verify that the passage they are consulting actually addresses alienatio rather than a neighboring concept.

Historical Dictionary Support

Burrill's entry is the substantive source here. It correctly situates alienatio in both Roman law (citing Justinian's Institutes and Digest) and feudal law (citing the Libri Feudorum), and it identifies the important extension of the term to implied transfers through usucapio. Burrill's cross-reference to alienare is useful: the verb and noun forms traveled together through civilian commentary, and treatises often use them interchangeably in ways that can obscure whether the author is describing the act (alienare) or the legal category of transfer (alienatio).

Anderson's Dictionary, as reflected in the available source material, does not provide a usable entry on alienatio itself. The captured text addresses alien status rather than property transfer, suggesting either a misattribution in the source extraction or an entry that pivoted sharply between related concepts. Researchers should not rely on Anderson's for this term without verifying the full entry.

Neither historical dictionary addresses the canonical law treatment of alienatio, which was elaborated by glossators and decretalists and governed alienation of church property with particular strictness. Researchers working in ecclesiastical law contexts should consult civilian and canon law sources directly rather than relying on common law dictionaries for this dimension.

ALIENATIOmain

Burrill's Law Dictionary • 1867

Lat. [from alienare, q. v. Gr. ExToinois.] In the civil and feudal law. The transfer of the ownership of a thing to another; alienation. Inst. 2. 8. pr. Dig. 50. 16. 67. Feud. Lib. 1, tit. 13. Lib. 2, titt. 52, 55. An implied transfer by prescription, or usucapion, (usucapio.) Dig. 50. 16. 28. See Alienare. In the seventh novel of Justinian, the Gr. Ekoinois is declared to include sale, gift, exchange and perpetual lease or emphyteusis. Nov. 7, c. 1. The transferring, or granting of a right. Cod. 4. 51. 7. 1 Mackeld. Civ. Law, 179, § 185. Abalienatio (q. v.) was sometimes used. In the common law. Alienation or conveyance, especially of real property. Stat. Marlbr. c. 30. Bract. fol. 46. Iniquum est ingenuis hominibus non esse liberam rerum suarum alienationem. It is unjust that freemen should not have the free disposal of their own property. Co. Litt. 223 a. 4 Kent's Com. 131. Alienatio licet prohibeatur, consensu tamen omnium in quorum favorem prohibita est, potest fieri. Though alienation be prohibited, yet, by the consent of all in whose favor the prohibition is, it can be made. Co. Litt. 98. Alienatio rei præfertur juri accrescendi. Alienation of a thing [subject of property] is preferred to the right of survivorship. Co. Litt. 185 a. Broom's Max. [330.]

ALIENATIOmain

Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890

whatever the status of his parents. An exception is made of the children of ambassadors.1 An "alien born" may not purchase lands for his own use, for the king is thereupon entitled to them. One reason is that if he could purchase, the nation might in time become subject to foreign influence. But he may acquire personalty, which is of a movable nature; besides that, trade demands this indulgence. As a consequence he may maintain actions concerning personalty, and dispose of it by will. An "alien enemy," however, has no rights unless by the sovereign's special favor.2 By the common law an alien may take lands by purchase, though not by descent; in other words, while he cannot take by the act of the law he may take by the act of the party. But he has no capacity to hold lands, and they may be seized into the hands of the sovereign. Until so seized, the alien has complete dominion over them. In this regard alien friends and alien enemies are alike. The title is devested by office-found, q. v. Disabilities as to holding realty have been removed in the States. See LAND, Public. At common law an alien is protected in his person, as to such property as he may own, in his relative rights, and in his reputation. In return for protection he is required to pay taxes. He cannot become President, nor, in some States, governor. Seven years after he has been naturalized he may be elected to Congress. Unnaturalized, he could not be adjudged a bankrupt, he cannot take out a copyright, nor can he exercise any political right. See PATENT, 2; TRADE-MARK. See further ALLEGIANCE; CITIZEN; DENIZEN; IMMIGRATION; NATURALIZE. Alien and sedition laws. See SEDITION. 2, v. To transfer; to alienate, q. v. Alienable. Admitting of transfer from one person to another. Inalienable, less frequently unalienable, not subject to transfer or devestment. "Inalienable rights" are such rights as cannot be bartered, given or taken away except in punishment of crime.4 An "unalienable right" is one which cannot be surrendered to government or society, because no equivalent can be received for it, and one which neither the government nor society can take away, because they can give no equivalent. Of such is the right of conscience. L. Transfer, alienation. From alienare, to make to be the property of another: alienus, another. Alienatio rei præfertur juri accrescendi. The alienation of a thing is preferred in law to its accumulation. Alienation, rather than the accumulation, of property is favored.7 Limitations upon alienation, imposed by public policy or by general statutes, are designed to prevent perpetuities and accumulations of realty in corpora1 [Burbank v. Rockingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 Ν. Η. 558 (1852). See also Lane v. Maine Mut. Fire Ins. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 54 Co., 12 Me. 48 (1835); 13 R. I. 622. Conn. 40-45 (1886), cases. 21 Bl. Com. 372. 3 Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 619-21 (1813), Story, J.; Conrad v. Waples, 96 U. S. 289-90 (1877); Phillips v. Moore, 100 id. 212 (1879); Hauenstein v. Lynham, ib. 484 (1879). 4 Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 756 (1884), Field, J. 5 Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 60 (1868). ? Huntress v. Place, 137 Mass. 409 (1884). 32 Bl. Com. 287. 4 Boyd v. Cudderback, 31 Ill. 119 (1863); 1 N. Y. 48. Masters v. Madison County Ins. Co., 11 Barb. 630, 629 (1852). • United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 397 (1880); 2 BI. Com. 294. 7 See 2 Bl. Com. 175, 288; 3 Kent, 507; 4 id. 131, 441; 59 Pa. 342; 76. Va. 144.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In