Definition
A Latin adjective meaning "greater" or "larger." In legal usage, *majus* appears not as a standalone doctrine but as a component of several maxims of law, each expressing a logical or hierarchical relationship between greater and lesser things, acts, or dignities. The term operates principally through three maxims encountered in common law sources:
1. *Majus est delictum seipsum occidere quam alium* — It is a greater crime to kill oneself than to kill another. This maxim reflects the common law treatment of suicide (*felo de se*) as an offense against the sovereign and against nature, classified at common law as more heinous than homicide of another on the theory that self-destruction deprives the king of a subject and forfeits the actor's estate.
2. *Majus dignum trahit ad se minus dignum* — The more worthy draws to itself the less worthy. A principle of absorption or merger: where a greater right or dignity exists, it encompasses and subsumes a lesser one. Applied in property, pleading, and ecclesiastical contexts to resolve conflicts or redundancies between competing rights or claims.
3. *Omne majus continet in se minus* — Every greater contains in itself the lesser. A logical principle holding that whoever has authority or power over the greater thing necessarily has authority or power over anything lesser included within it. Applied to construe the scope of grants, powers, and authorizations.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will not encounter *majus* as a doctrine to search directly. It functions as a grammatical and logical marker within Latin maxims, and its significance lies entirely in the maxims it anchors. When researching early common law materials — especially Coke's *Institutes*, Bracton, and Noy's *Maxims* — these phrases appear frequently in argument and judicial reasoning without explanation, on the assumption that readers recognize them.
The maxim *majus dignum trahit ad se minus dignum* has practical relevance in historical property research: it appears in merger doctrine, in questions about dominant and servient estates, and in pleading questions about whether a greater cause of action absorbs a lesser. Researchers working in equity or ecclesiastical materials should note that "dignity" (*dignum*) in this context carries hierarchical meaning that differs from modern usage.
The maxim *omne majus continet in se minus* appears in construction-of-grants disputes and in early constitutional argument about the scope of delegated powers. It surfaces in treatise literature and in judicial opinions reasoning about implied authority.
The suicide maxim (*majus est delictum seipsum occidere quam alium*) is historically significant but should be treated with care in modern research: the common law classification of suicide as criminal has been abolished in virtually all common law jurisdictions, and the maxim has no operative legal force today. It appears in historical sources as explanatory context for *felo de se* forfeiture rules, not as living law.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the primary shelf entry, presenting *majus* through its three principal maxims with citations to Coke's *Institutes* (3 Inst. 54), Coke on Littleton (Co. Litt. 43, 355b), Bracton (fol. 175), Noy's *Maxims* (max. 18), and Wingate's *Maxims* (max. 59). The entry is functional rather than analytical — it supplies the Latin, the translation, and the authority, without extended commentary on application.
Burrill's treatment reflects the standard approach of nineteenth-century legal dictionaries to maxims: catalogue them with source citations, translate them faithfully, and leave doctrinal application to the practitioner. What Burrill does not address is the contested status of the suicide maxim even in his own era, nor the varying weight courts gave to the absorption maxim in property versus pleading contexts. Researchers should treat the citations Burrill provides as entry points, not endpoints — Coke's *Institutes* and Bracton should be consulted directly for the maxims in context.
Jurisdictional Note
The maxims associated with *majus* originate in English common law and appear most frequently in sources predating 1800. American courts cited them in early opinions but their direct invocation has become rare. The *felo de se* maxim has no legal force in any U.S. jurisdiction today and should be treated as historical artifact only.