MOBILIA - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

MOBILIAAuthored

The Law Mind • 844 words

Definition

A Latin term from the civil law meaning movables or movable things. Mobilia refers to personal property capable of being moved from place to place, as distinguished from immovables (real property fixed to the land). In the civil law tradition, the term carried technical precision: inanimate movable objects were called mobilia in the strict sense, while animals, which moved under their own power, were separately designated as moventes or se moventes. In broader usage, however, mobilia encompassed both categories.

The term appears most frequently in conflict of laws contexts, where it anchors two foundational maxims governing which jurisdiction's law controls the disposition of movable property:

1. Mobilia sequuntur personam — Movables follow the person. The law governing movable property is the law of the owner's domicile, not the location of the property.

2. Mobilia non habent situm — Movables have no fixed situs or local habitation. Because movables by nature lack permanent attachment to a place, they do not carry an inherent territorial law the way immovable property does.

Common Confusion

Mobilia is sometimes loosely treated as synonymous with personal property in the common law sense, but the correspondence is imperfect. The civil law distinction between mobilia (inanimate movables) and moventes (self-moving animals) has no clean counterpart in common law categories of personal property. More practically, certain things that common law treats as personal property — such as fixtures and emblements — occupy a hybrid status, partaking of both real and personal property characteristics, and do not map neatly onto mobilia. Researchers should not assume that any item classified as personal property under common law qualifies as mobilia under civil law analysis, or vice versa.

Why It Matters in Research

Mobilia is primarily a conflict of laws term, and researchers encountering it should immediately orient to that context. The maxim mobilia sequuntur personam governed the choice-of-law analysis for movable property in equity courts well into the nineteenth century. Historical American cases — particularly in New York chancery — invoked the maxim to resolve disputes over the succession and transfer of movables owned by persons domiciled in one jurisdiction but holding property in another.

The term appears frequently in nineteenth-century equity and probate materials. When researching intestate succession, testamentary disposition of personal property, or inter vivos transfers involving parties of different domiciles in historical sources, mobilia and its attendant maxims are the conceptual framework underpinning the court's reasoning, even when the English equivalent "movables" is used in the opinion text.

Modern conflict of laws doctrine has substantially displaced the automatic application of mobilia sequuntur personam. The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws adopted a more flexible "most significant relationship" approach, and the domicile rule for movables is now one factor rather than a near-absolute rule. This means that historical sources will apply the maxim mechanically in situations where modern courts would engage in a more nuanced analysis. Researchers should not read historical applications of mobilia sequuntur personam as current law.

The Anderson's entry in the source material is clearly a mis-keyed entry for a different term (relating to mistake in equity) and should be disregarded entirely for any research purpose. This is an example of the kind of indexing errors that appear in compiled historical dictionaries and that Law Mind corpus researchers must recognize and set aside.

Historical Dictionary Support

Black's (1st and 2nd editions) and Burrill's converge on the core definition — Latin for movables or movable things, equivalent to res mobiles — and all flag the two governing maxims. Burrill's provides the most technically precise entry, correctly distinguishing the strict civil law usage (inanimate objects only) from the broader usage (all movables including animals), with references to the Digest and to Heineccius. Black's 2nd edition is the most useful for conflict of laws research because it cites Holmes v. Remsen and Story's Conflict of Laws, providing the doctrinal context in which American courts actually deployed the term.

Bouvier's adds nothing beyond a cross-reference to its MOVABLES entry, which is consistent with Bouvier's general practice of treating Latin terms as secondary headwords.

None of the historical dictionaries engage with the erosion of mobilia sequuntur personam as an automatic conflict of laws rule — a development that was still underway during the period most of these dictionaries were compiled. Researchers relying solely on these sources will receive an accurate picture of classical doctrine but no warning about its subsequent qualification.

Jurisdictional Note

The maxim mobilia sequuntur personam has historically been applied in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, but its scope and durability differ. Louisiana, Quebec, and other mixed or civil law jurisdictions maintained closer fidelity to the civil law classification of mobilia. In civilian jurisdictions, the immovables/movables distinction remains foundational, whereas common law jurisdictions have largely absorbed the analysis into broader personal/real property frameworks.

MOBILIAmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

Lat. Movables; movable things; otherwise called “res mobiles.” real, but which are attended, nevertheless, with some of the legal qualities of things personal, as emblements, fixtures, and shares in public undertakings; connected with land. Besides these, there are others which, though things personal in point of definition, are, in respect of some of their legal qualities, of the nature of things real; such are animals feræ naturæ, charters and deeds, court rolls, and other evidences of the land, together have no situs or local habitation. 4 Johns. with the chests in which they are contained, ancient family pictures, ornaments, tomb- stones, coats of armor, with pennons and oth- er ensigns, and especially heir-looms. Whar- ton.

MOBILIAmain

Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910

Lat. Movables; movable things; otherwise cnlled ‘res mobiles.” Mobilia non habent situm. Movables have no situs or local habitation. Holmes v. Remsen, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 472, 8 Am. Dec. §81. Mobilia sequuntur personam. Movables follow the [law of the] person. Story, Confl. Law, § 378; Broom, Max. 522.

MOBILIAmain

Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890

ment. If the parties act fairly, one not being bound to communicate the facts to the other, a court of equity will not interfere.1 To entitle a plaintiff to relief in equity the mistake must be clearly established.2 "We think that no case can be found where a court of equity has relieved a party on account of a mistake which was made through the mere carelessness and negligence of the party asking relief, where there rested a duty upon him toward the other party to use due care and diligence not to make a mistake." s Relief for a mistake of law cannot be granted in a Federal court.4 See further CONSENSUS, Tollit, etc.; IGNORANCE; KNOWLEDGE, 1; MISPRISION, 2; PAYMENT, Voluntary; RECEIPT; RECORD, 2; REFORM; RESCISSION; WILL, 2. Mixed jury. A jury of white and black persons. See JURY. Mixed larceny. Larceny characterized by circumstances of aggravation; compound larceny, q. v. Mixed marriage. A marriage contracted between persons of different races. See L. Movable things; movables, q. v. Mobilia non habet situm. Movables have no situs. 3 Mobilia personam sequuntur, immobilia situm. Movables follow the person, immovables the locality. The use and transfer of personalty is regulated by the law of the domicil of the owner; the use and disposition of realty, by the law of the place where situated.4 See PLACE, 1; PROPERTY; SITUS. 1 [Angell, Ins. § 136; Harris v. York Mut. Ins. Co., 50 Pa. 341 (1855). * County of Allegheny v. Gibson's Son & Co., 90 Pa. 397, 404 (1879): Pittsburgh Riot of July 20-24, 1877. See also Solomon v. Kingston, 24 Hun, 562 (1881); Hart v. Bridgeport, 13 Blatch, 289 (1876); Wing Chung v. Los Angeles, 47 Cal. 351 (1874); Atchison v. Twine, 9 Kan. 356 (1872); Dale County v. Gunter, 46 Ala. 118 (1871); Baltimore v. Poultney, 25 Md. 107 (1866); Darlington v. New York City, 31 N. Y. 187-89 (1865); 16 Alb. Law J. 109 (1877), cases and statutes; Wis. Act 1886. 34 Johns. Ch. 472. 44 Kent, 513; 2 id. 67; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 668; Story, Confl. L. §§ 376, 424.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In