Definition
In English law, ear grass denotes the grass remaining on land after mowing, which continues to be treated as such until the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25) following the harvest. The term is a term of agricultural tenancy and land use, marking a defined temporal window during which the residual grass on mowed land retained a distinct legal character — relevant to questions of right of common, grazing entitlements, and the obligations of tenants or commoners with respect to that land.
The practical significance lay in determining who held the right to use or benefit from the land's aftermath during that interval. In historical English agricultural practice, rights over land were often seasonally divided: the period after mowing and before the next Lady Day (the Feast of the Annunciation) was a recognized phase in the agrarian calendar, and legal disputes turned on whether a party's rights extended to ear grass specifically.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): No established general entry. "Ear" in botanical contexts refers to the seed-bearing spike of a cereal plant (e.g., an ear of corn or wheat), not to grass left after mowing.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Ear" as a noun in agricultural usage refers to the spike or head of a grain plant. "Grass" carries its ordinary meaning of low herbaceous ground cover or pasture.
The legal term "ear grass" does not track either the botanical meaning of "ear" or the general meaning of "grass" as pasture. It is a term of art describing a temporally bounded category of land-surface herbage with defined legal consequences for rights of use — not a botanical description.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical English common law sources touching agricultural tenancy, rights of common, and the seasonal structure of land use under the open-field and enclosed farming systems. Researchers should note several points:
First, the temporal anchor — the Feast of the Annunciation (Lady Day, March 25) — is a recurring reference point in English agrarian and tenancy law and appears in many unrelated legal contexts involving rent days, term commencements, and quarter days. Encountering "Annunciation" in historical land documents does not by itself signal ear grass; context determines which application is meant.
Second, the single authority cited across all three source dictionaries is 3 Leon. 213 (Leonard's Reports, third part). Burrill's entry contains a typographical corruption — the citation appears garbled alongside unrelated Latin maxim material, likely a printing error in the source edition. Researchers consulting Burrill's for this entry should treat the surrounding Latin text as a separate entry and not as explanatory matter for ear grass.
Third, Black's 2nd edition cites "38 Leon. 213" where the 1st edition gives "3 Leon. 213." This is almost certainly a typographical variant across editions. Leonard's Reports are organized by part number, not volume number running to 38; researchers should verify against the original Leonard citation rather than relying on the Black's numeral.
Fourth, this term will not appear in American legal sources. It is a product of English agrarian law and has no reception in American common law. Researchers working in U.S. property or agricultural law will not encounter it as operative law.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries — Black's (1st ed.), Black's (2nd ed.), and Burrill's — give substantively identical definitions, each anchored to the same single authority (Leonard's Reports). There is no divergence in substance, only the citation numeral discrepancy between Black's editions noted above.
None of the historical dictionaries contextualizes the term within the broader system of agricultural tenancy law, rights of common, or the significance of Lady Day as a term date. The definitions are minimal glosses rather than analytical entries. Researchers requiring fuller context should look to historical treatments of English agrarian tenure, common rights, and the structure of the agricultural year rather than relying on dictionary sources alone.
Burrill's entry is typographically unreliable for this term due to what appears to be a compositing error in the printed source, where an unrelated Latin maxim from Justinian's Digest was run together with the ear grass entry. The Latin passage — concerning things impossible to give or not existing in nature being treated as not part of an agreement — is drawn from Dig. 50.17.135 and has no connection to ear grass.
Jurisdictional Note
Ear grass is a term of historical English law only. It carries no recognized legal meaning in any U.S. jurisdiction, nor in modern English law where the underlying agrarian framework has been superseded. Its relevance is limited to historical research into pre-modern English land and tenancy law.