Definition
A Law French term meaning "to put," "to send," or "to pass." In English legal usage, *mitter* appears almost exclusively as a prefix in compound phrases that describe how a right or interest is transferred or conveyed. It is not used as a standalone operative word in modern legal documents.
The term carries two slightly distinct senses across the historical sources:
1. To pass or convey — used in phrases like *mitter l'estate* (to pass the estate) and *mitter le droit* (to pass the right), where the word signals the mechanism of a release or conveyance.
2. To put or suppose a case — used in the older pleading and argument sense of hypothetical reasoning, as in presenting a legal proposition for consideration.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A kind of brush resembling a mop, used in car washes.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not defined; the term does not appear as a common English word in that period.
The car wash tool and the Law French legal term share nothing but spelling. A researcher encountering *mitter* in an old English or colonial American legal document should not expect any connection to ordinary English usage. The word is a functional fragment of Law French surviving in fixed legal compound phrases.
Common Confusion
*Mitter* is most likely to be misread by researchers unfamiliar with Law French who encounter it mid-phrase without context. The two principal compound phrases — *mitter l'estate* and *mitter le droit* — describe structurally different kinds of releases, and conflating them leads to misreading what a historical deed or release actually accomplished. *Mitter l'estate* passes the possessory interest itself; *mitter le droit* passes only the right or claim, without transferring possession. A researcher who treats both as interchangeable "transfers" will mischaracterize the legal operation.
Burrill's sense — "to put a case" or "to suppose" — is distinct again, and appears in the context of judicial reasoning or argument, not conveyancing.
Why It Matters in Research
*Mitter* appears in the Law Mind corpus almost entirely as a component of compound phrases, not as a freestanding term. Researchers should index it accordingly: search for *mitter l'estate* and *mitter le droit* as complete units, not for *mitter* alone.
The distinction between *mitter l'estate* and *mitter le droit* was technically significant in English common law release doctrine, where different release forms produced different legal outcomes depending on whether the grantor held possession, a right, or both. Historical treatises on conveyancing — particularly those dealing with releases and the Statute of Uses — will invoke this vocabulary. Sources from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are the most likely sites of encounter.
The Burrill sense ("to suppose" or "to put a case") reflects a different tradition — that of Law French as a medium of judicial discourse and pleading — and appears in Dyer's reports and similar early English case reporters. Researchers working in that stratum of the corpus should be alert to this procedural or argumentative usage rather than assuming every occurrence of *mitter* is conveyancing language.
There is a transcription hazard in the second edition of Black's: the entry reads *nuitter Vestate* rather than *mitter l'estate*, a clear compositor's error. Researchers relying on that edition should be aware the phrase is corrupt in print.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's first and second editions agree on the core meaning — "to put, to send, or to pass" — and on the two principal compound phrases. The second edition's text is corrupted by a printing error (*nuitter Vestate* for *mitter l'estate*), but the substance is the same.
Burrill adds a third dimension that Black's omits: the argumentative or hypothetical use, drawn from Dyer's reports, in which *mitter* means "to put" in the sense of "to posit" or "to suppose." This is a meaningful supplement. Burrill's example — *Mountague mist cest case* — translates roughly as "Mountague put this case," meaning the judge or serjeant proposed a hypothetical for discussion. This usage reflects the living procedural register of Law French and is absent from Black's entries, which focus exclusively on conveyancing.
None of the three sources provides extended analysis. All three treat *mitter* as a definitional pass-through to its compound phrases. Researchers needing substantive doctrinal treatment should consult primary conveyancing treatises or works on releases in English equity and common law rather than relying on dictionary entries alone.