Definition
In the law of contracts and deeds, general words are broad, catch-all terms inserted in a conveyance, grant, or agreement to extend the operative effect of the instrument beyond its specifically enumerated items. They function as a sweeping supplement — capturing rights, privileges, appurtenances, and interests that might otherwise be excluded by implication because they were not individually named.
The classic application is in conveyances of real property, where general words following a description of the principal estate are understood to pass easements, rights of way, common rights, and other appurtenant interests that belong to the land, even if not expressly listed. Courts construe general words in light of what the parties could reasonably have intended to include, and in light of what actually attaches to the property conveyed.
General words also appear in grants of personal property, assignments, and testamentary instruments, where they serve the same expansionary function: capturing what the specific language might leave behind.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "General words" in ordinary English means words that are vague, broad, or non-specific — as opposed to words of precision or technical exactness. The phrase carries a mild pejorative or cautionary tone: a speaker using "general words" is speaking loosely.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's treats "general" as meaning "relating to a whole class or body; not special or particular; not limited in scope." General words are simply words of wide or indefinite application.
The gap matters. In everyday speech, calling something "general words" suggests imprecision or vagueness — a weakness. In the law of conveyancing, general words perform a deliberate, affirmative drafting function. They are not sloppy; they are purposeful catch-alls that courts recognize and give operative legal effect. A researcher encountering the phrase in a historical deed or pleading should read it as a term of art signaling an intentional extension of scope, not careless drafting.
Common Confusion
General words should not be confused with words of limitation, which define the estate granted (e.g., "to A and his heirs"), or words of description, which identify the specific subject matter of the conveyance. General words follow the description and operate to pull in appurtenant or related interests. Nor should general words be confused with general clauses in statutory interpretation, where the interpretive question is whether broad statutory language reaches specific cases — a distinct analytical problem governed by different canons of construction.
Why It Matters in Research
The practical importance of general words is concentrated in the conveyancing and property law literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Researchers working with historical deeds, grants, or leases will encounter printed forms that routinely included a standard block of general words after the property description. Understanding that this block was a recognized legal device — not boilerplate noise — is essential to accurate interpretation.
In historical sources, general words often trigger a distinct body of case law on what they actually pass. Not everything appurtenant to land passed under general words as a matter of course; courts distinguished between rights that were truly appurtenant and those that were personal to the grantor or required express grant. A researcher tracing a title dispute or an easement claim in nineteenth-century materials must attend carefully to whether the court is analyzing the specific language of the deed or the general words clause.
General words also appear in the context of powers of attorney and assignments, where the question is whether a broadly worded grant of authority covers the specific act in dispute. Here again, the historical materials treat general words as having recognized — if contested — outer limits.
Modern deed practice in many U.S. jurisdictions has codified appurtenance language by statute, reducing reliance on common-law general words doctrine. Researchers should not assume that modern statutory appurtenance provisions and the historical general words doctrine are interchangeable; the cases and treatise commentary developed under distinct analytical frameworks.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence define general words as "the words in a deed or conveyance which are added, after the specific description of property, for the purpose of including whatever may have been accidentally omitted, or which appertain to the premises, though not expressly mentioned." This definition is serviceable and accurate as far as it goes. It correctly identifies the supplementary function — filling accidental gaps and capturing appurtenances — and situates the device squarely in conveyancing practice.
What the Rapalje & Lawrence entry does not address is the interpretive complexity that surrounds general words in practice: when they are controlled by specific language in the same instrument, whether they can overcome an express limitation, and the distinction between what passes under general words as a matter of law versus what requires express grant. Researchers needing that depth should look to the conveyancing treatises — particularly those of the English practitioners whose analysis was widely adopted in American courts.
Jurisdictional Note
The common-law doctrine of general words developed primarily in English conveyancing practice and was inherited by American courts, but modern American jurisdictions vary in how much independent work general words still do. Many states have enacted statutory appurtenance clauses or short-form deed statutes that effectively codify the result that general words once achieved at common law. In those jurisdictions, the historical case law on general words retains interpretive relevance for older instruments but may be largely superseded for modern conveyances.