Definition
In gross means held independently, not attached to or dependent upon ownership of land or any other thing. A right, interest, or privilege existing in gross belongs to a person directly — in their own right — rather than as an incident of owning particular property.
The term carries two related but distinct applications in law:
1. Rights and easements in gross. An easement, common, or similar right held in gross is one that benefits a person personally, rather than benefiting a parcel of land (which would make it appurtenant). The right travels with the person, not with any piece of property. Common in gross, the most historically prominent example, is a right of common (such as the right to pasture animals on another's land) that is annexed to the holder's person by grant or prescription, rather than attached to the holder's dominant tenement.
2. Commercial or transactional sense. In gross also means in a lump sum or aggregate — without itemization, division, or apportionment into particulars. A sale or grant in gross conveys an undivided whole rather than a broken-out share or component.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Roughly; approximately; generally; without going into detail. Also, in a large quantity or sum; by wholesale. Also, held independently, not annexed to anything else.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): In bulk; in a lump; all together; by wholesale.
The commercial sense of in gross — meaning in bulk or wholesale — is close enough to ordinary English to be recognizable. The legal sense, however, sharpens this into a technical distinction: a right in gross is not merely a large or undivided interest, it is an interest that exists without any attachment to land ownership. A researcher who reads in gross in a property or easements context and understands it only as "wholesale" or "in bulk" will miss the structural point entirely — that the right stands alone, severed from any dominant estate.
Common Confusion
In gross is most often confused with appurtenant and appendant, its conceptual opposites. An interest appurtenant runs with a parcel of land and passes automatically to successive owners. An interest in gross belongs to a named person and does not pass with land unless expressly assigned (and in some historical contexts, could not be assigned at all). The distinction matters enormously in easements law: an easement appurtenant transfers automatically with the benefited property; an easement in gross may or may not be transferable depending on jurisdiction and whether it is commercial or personal in nature.
In gross is also occasionally confused with at large, which shares some overlap in loose usage but is not a synonym in property law.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Common in gross: A right of common attached to the holder's person rather than to land ownership. Historically distinguished from common appendant (arising from tenure) and common appurtenant (attached to a dominant tenement by grant or prescription).
Easement in gross: An easement benefiting a person or entity rather than a dominant estate. Modern American property law distinguishes commercial easements in gross (generally assignable and alienable) from personal easements in gross (generally not alienable).
Advowson in gross: The right of presentation to a church living, held independently of any manor or land. Noted in Burrill as a distinct application of the in gross concept.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research trap is jurisdictional and temporal drift in the law of easements in gross. Historical sources — including Blackstone, which all four dictionary sources cite to — treat common in gross as a well-defined category, but the assignability and survivability of such rights was contested and varied considerably by jurisdiction. Researchers using historical sources to understand easements in gross in a modern American context must account for the fact that American courts significantly developed this doctrine independently, particularly splitting commercial from personal easements in gross in ways that have no clean English common law analogue.
The commercial/personal easement distinction is largely a twentieth-century American development and will not appear in any of the historical dictionary sources. Black's, Burrill's, and Bouvier's all reflect the English common law framework, where the core question was appurtenant vs. in gross, not commercial vs. personal. A researcher relying solely on these sources to analyze a pipeline or utility easement in gross will find the foundational vocabulary but not the modern doctrinal superstructure.
The transactional sense of in gross (lump-sum, undivided, wholesale) appears in older contract and sale documents and can create ambiguity when the phrase appears in a deed or conveyance. Context determines which sense is operative: property rights contexts call for the personal/independent sense; commercial and accounting contexts call for the aggregate/lump-sum sense.
Corpus connections: Easements in gross appear heavily in real property records, railroad and utility right-of-way instruments, and water rights documentation. Common in gross appears in older agricultural tenancy and manorial records. Advowson in gross is primarily an ecclesiastical law matter of historical research interest.
Historical Dictionary Support
All four sources agree on the core definition and all cite Blackstone's Commentaries (Book II) as the authority for common in gross. This convergence reflects that the term was settled English common law by the time these dictionaries were compiled; there is no significant disagreement among them on fundamentals.
Burrill adds the most texture, noting the application to advowsons and historically to villeins attached to a person rather than to land — a feudal context the other sources omit. Bouvier adds a useful practical note that common in gross may arise either by deed (express grant) or by prescriptive right, which is a point the other sources leave implicit.
None of the four historical sources addresses the commercial/personal easement distinction or the assignability rules that modern American property law has built around easements in gross. This is an expected gap: the doctrine in its modern form postdates these compilations.
Black's 2nd Edition references Green v. Taylor for the commercial/wholesale sense — a useful signal that this sense was litigated in federal court, though the property sense remains the more doctrinally significant one.
Jurisdictional Note
American jurisdictions are not uniform on the assignability of easements in gross. Most states allow commercial easements in gross to be assigned; personal easements in gross are generally not assignable without express agreement. A minority of states follow older rules less hospitable to assignment even of commercial easements. Research into a specific jurisdiction's treatment requires consulting that state's property statutes and case law, not historical dictionary sources.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No direct match in the Law Mind Encyclopedia. The Tax Encyclopedia entries on gross income (royalties and alimony) concern a different use of the word gross and are not relevant to this entry.