Definition
Dispossession is the wrongful removal of a person from possession of real property by the act of another who takes actual occupation of the land or hereditament. It is also termed ouster. The defining feature is the amotion of possession — the literal displacement of the possessor — as opposed to mere interference with title or quiet enjoyment. Dispossession is not a single wrong but a category of wrongs encompassing several recognized forms: abatement, intrusion, disseisin, discontinuance, and deforcement. Each describes a distinct mode by which a wrongdoer achieves actual occupation at the expense of the rightful possessor.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The act of dispossessing someone of something; also, the casting out of an evil spirit (exorcism).
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act of putting out of possession, wrongfully or otherwise, of one who is in possession of a freehold; called also ouster.
The ordinary English meaning tracks the legal meaning closely — both center on removal from possession — but the legal term is considerably more precise. It is limited to real property, requires actual displacement (not merely legal injury), and carries a formal taxonomy of subtypes. The supernatural sense (exorcism) in modern general usage has no legal relevance and signals why a researcher should not rely on modern dictionary sources when tracing this term in historical legal records.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
The historical authorities consistently enumerate five recognized modes of dispossession, drawn from Blackstone's Commentaries:
ABATEMENT — Entry by a stranger after the death of a freeholder and before the heir takes possession.
INTRUSION — Entry by a stranger after a particular estate ends, before the remainderman or reversioner takes possession.
DISSEISIN — The most significant form: a direct and wrongful putting out of the actual possessor of a freehold, against the possessor's will.
DISCONTINUANCE — Where a tenant in fee tail or a person holding in right of another alienates more than they can lawfully convey, and the rightful owner is thereby put to a real action to recover.
DEFORCEMENT — A broad residual category: the withholding of lands from one who has a right to possess them, where the wrong does not rise to disseisin or the other named forms.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus will encounter dispossession primarily in the context of real property actions in equity and at common law. Several navigational points are essential.
First, the term belongs to a pre-modern framework of property wrongs that has been substantially displaced in most jurisdictions by statutory ejectment and summary possession proceedings. When the term appears in historical pleadings, writs, or treatises, it signals a classical common-law context and often implies a question about which real action — novel disseisin, writ of right, ejectment — was available to the dispossessed party.
Second, the five subtypes are not interchangeable. Disseisin was historically the most litigated form and generated the most developed doctrine. Researchers reading cases about dispossession generally need to identify which subtype is at issue, because the available remedies and the applicable limitation periods differed between them.
Third, dispossession must be distinguished from mere disturbance of possession or interference with title. The amotion requirement — actual physical displacement — is the threshold. A plaintiff whose title was clouded but who retained occupation was not, at common law, dispossessed. This distinction matters when reading historical equity pleadings where the line between dispossession and other property injuries is contested.
Fourth, in modern usage the term survives most visibly in landlord-tenant law, where it may appear in summary dispossession proceedings — a procedural context entirely distinct from the classical common-law framework. Researchers should not assume continuity of meaning between historical references to dispossession as an ouster and modern references in housing court.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four shelf sources agree with near uniformity, all tracking the same passage from Blackstone's Commentaries (Book 3, Chapter 10). Black's First Edition, Bouvier's, and Black's Second Edition reproduce the definition verbatim, listing the five subtypes by name. Burrill's is the most economical, describing dispossession as "a species of injury to real property by the amotion or deprivation of possession" and directing the reader immediately to the entry for Ouster.
The consensus across sources on the amotion requirement is notable: all four treat the physical displacement of the possessor — not mere impairment of title — as the conceptual core. None of the shelf sources define dispossession by reference to the wrongdoer's title or claim; the act is defined by its effect on the victim's possession, not by whether the wrongdoer had any colorable right to enter.
Bouvier's entry adds a Latin-language note (Disputatio Fori) in an apparent typographical continuation from the dispossession entry — this is an artifact of the original printing and has no bearing on the definition. Researchers encountering this in reproductions of Bouvier's should note the transition.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the procedural mechanisms for recovering possession (ejectment, novel disseisin, writ of entry), the modern summary dispossession statutes in landlord-tenant law, and the equitable dimension of wrongful dispossession as a basis for injunctive relief. For these, researchers must look beyond the dictionary definitions to treatises and case law.
Jurisdictional Note
Modern summary dispossession statutes vary significantly by state. In landlord-tenant contexts, some jurisdictions use "dispossession" as a statutory term of art for the formal removal proceeding, while others use "eviction" or "unlawful detainer" for the same process. Researchers working in housing law should verify the operative statutory vocabulary in the relevant jurisdiction rather than assuming the classical common-law meaning controls.