Definition
A right of common in gross is a type of common right — that is, a right to use another's land for a specified purpose such as pasture, fishing, or gathering wood — that exists independently of any land ownership by the right-holder. Unlike common appurtenant, which attaches to a dominant tenement and passes automatically with the ownership of that land, common in gross belongs to a person directly, acquired by deed or by prescription, and does not depend on the holder's ownership of any adjacent or related parcel.
Common in gross may be limited (fixed to a definite number of animals, for example) or unlimited (allowing an indefinite number of cattle to graze). This distinction has legal significance: a limited common in gross is generally treated as assignable, while an unlimited common in gross has historically been viewed with suspicion as to alienability, since it carries no natural check on over-exploitation of the servient land.
---
Common Confusion
COMMON IN GROSS vs. COMMON APPURTENANT: These are the two principal categories of common rights, and they are frequently confused. Common appurtenant runs with land — the right is tied to a dominant tenement, passes with it on conveyance, and requires that the holder also own adjoining or related land that benefits from the right. Common in gross has no such tether: it belongs to the person, not the land. A researcher encountering a historical grant of "common" without further specification must determine which kind is meant, as the rules governing transferability, prescription, and extinction differ sharply between them.
---
Core Elements
To establish or recognize a common in gross, the following must generally be present:
1. Acquisition by deed or prescription. Common in gross does not arise by implication or necessity — it requires an explicit grant or long-recognized use.
2. No dominant tenement. The right-holder need not own land benefiting from the right. This is the defining feature distinguishing it from common appurtenant.
3. Subject matter. Like other commons, common in gross may be of pasture, piscary (fishing), estovers (wood-cutting), turbary (peat-cutting), or similar uses of the servient land.
4. Definite or indefinite scope. Whether the right is capped at a fixed number of animals or head of cattle affects its alienability and the degree to which courts will enforce or limit it.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Limited common in gross: The right is fixed to a certain number of animals or a quantified use. Generally held assignable because the burden on the servient land is bounded and predictable.
Unlimited (or sans nombre) common in gross: No ceiling on the number of animals or extent of use. Historically disfavored in transfer because severance or division among multiple holders could devastate the servient land. Courts and commentators have been reluctant to allow full alienation of unlimited common in gross.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with historical property records, colonial-era land grants, or agricultural easement disputes will encounter the term in contexts where its doctrinal distinctions carry real weight. Several navigational points:
First, terminology is inconsistent across centuries. Early English and American sources sometimes use "common in gross" loosely to mean any personal right of common not immediately appurtenant to a specific parcel. Confirm which meaning is operative by examining whether the grantor specifies a dominant tenement.
Second, alienability rules shifted over time and by jurisdiction. The common law rule that an unlimited common in gross was inalienable in severalty — that multiple heirs or assignees could not each hold a share independently — appears clearly in Bouvier but was not uniformly applied in American courts, particularly in states that codified or liberalized easement law.
Third, this term surfaces in adverse possession and prescriptive easement disputes. When a party claims a common in gross by prescription, the question of whether use was exercised as a matter of right (not mere license) is central. The personal nature of the right means that use by different individuals over time may not aggregate into a single prescriptive claim.
Fourth, modern scholarship on conservation easements sometimes analogizes to common in gross when analyzing easements held by land trusts or government bodies — entities that do not own a dominant tenement. Researchers bridging historical doctrine and modern environmental law should track this doctrinal thread carefully.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's is the primary historical source available here, and its treatment is accurate as far as it goes. Bouvier correctly identifies the three core features: acquisition by deed or prescription, independence from any land ownership, and the incapacity of the right — when it descends to several persons — to be divided and enjoyed by each in severalty. The truncation in the available text likely omits Bouvier's fuller discussion of limited versus unlimited number, a distinction that Blackstone's Commentaries and early treatise writers treat as controlling for assignability.
What Bouvier does not develop — and what later American dictionaries and treatises were slow to address — is the adaptation of common in gross to American land practice, where formal manorial structures did not exist and the rights often arose informally. Researchers should not assume that English doctrine mapped cleanly onto American jurisdictions without consulting local case law.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine of common in gross is primarily a common law inheritance and remains most fully developed in jurisdictions that retained English property law frameworks. Several American states expressly codified or modified easement law in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the older distinction between common appurtenant and common in gross may be subsumed under broader easement categories. In states following the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, the appurtenant/in-gross distinction survives but with relaxed rules on transferability.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia — Concurrent Ownership: Tenancy in Common (property_10) provides relevant background on shared interests in property, though the entry addresses co-ownership rather than common rights proper. No single encyclopedia entry maps directly to this doctrine; researchers should use the concurrent ownership entry as a doctrinal starting point and extend their search to servitudes and easements coverage.
---