Definition
A Latin term meaning "we have granted." In the law of conveyances, *concessimus* was a formal operative word used in deeds and charters to express a collective grant by multiple grantors. Its legal significance went beyond mere translation: when two or more grantors executed a deed using *concessimus*, the word was understood to bind them jointly, creating a joint covenant rather than several individual covenants. Each grantor was thereby tied to the whole of the obligation, not merely to a proportionate share.
---
Common Confusion
*Concessimus* is sometimes loosely grouped with other Latin operative words of grant — *dedi* ("I have given"), *concessi* ("I have granted"), *donavi* ("I have donated") — without appreciating the distinction. *Concessi* is the singular first-person form; *concessimus* is the plural. That grammatical difference carried legal weight in historical practice: *concessi* in a deed executed by a single grantor created an individual covenant, while *concessimus* in a deed executed by multiple grantors created a joint one. Researchers who treat these terms as interchangeable will misread the nature of the obligations created by historical instruments.
---
Why It Matters in Research
*Concessimus* is a term of purely historical significance. It belongs to the vocabulary of formal Latin conveyancing that dominated English land law from the medieval period through the early modern era and appears routinely in royal charters, grants of land, and formal deeds executed by co-grantors before English-language conveyancing became standard.
For corpus researchers, several traps warrant attention:
**Period of appearance.** Expect to encounter *concessimus* in primary sources from roughly the Norman period through the seventeenth century. By the time American common law was codifying conveyancing practice, Latin operative words had largely given way to English equivalents, though treatise writers continued to discuss them analytically well into the nineteenth century.
**Joint vs. several covenant consequences.** The practical stakes of identifying *concessimus* in a historical deed are real. A joint covenant meant that all grantors were liable together; a creditor or covenantee could pursue any one of them for the whole. Survival rules for joint obligations (right of survivorship, merger at death) differed from several obligations. Reading a historical deed without recognizing that *concessimus* signals joint liability can lead to misunderstanding who bore the burden and how that burden passed.
**Formulaic context.** *Concessimus* rarely appears in isolation. In charters, it typically appears as part of a standard operative clause — often alongside *dedimus* or other plural perfect forms — following the names of the grantors. Researchers should treat it as a key to parsing the grammatical subject of the conveyancing clause: plural form signals multiple grantors acting as a unit.
**American sources.** American legal dictionaries carried the definition forward, but *concessimus* has no living role in American conveyancing. Its appearance in American legal literature is almost exclusively doctrinal or treatise-based, tracing English common law roots rather than reflecting active practice.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary consulted here agree exactly, which is itself informative: no substantive evolution occurred between the editions, reflecting the term's status as a frozen historical artifact rather than a developing legal concept. Both define it consistently as "we have granted" and identify its operative effect as creating a joint covenant among co-grantors.
What the dictionary entries do not supply — and what researchers should seek elsewhere — is any account of how courts resolved disputes about whether *concessimus* actually imposed joint liability when grantors later contested it, or how the rule interacted with the broader doctrines of joint tenancy and joint obligation. For that analytical depth, older English treatises on conveyancing and real property are the more productive source.
---
Jurisdictional Note
*Concessimus* has no current operative role in any American jurisdiction. Its relevance is limited to the interpretation of historical instruments under English common law. Researchers working with colonial-era or early republic-era American deeds may encounter it, but should apply English common law interpretive rules to assess its effect.
---