MONSTER - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

MONSTERAuthored

The Law Mind • 852 words

Definition

In historical English and American law, a monster was a human birth or offspring so severely deformed as to lack the essential shape of mankind. The doctrine held that such a person could not inherit land or take as an heir, even if born in lawful wedlock. The legal consequence turned entirely on the question of human form: a birth that departed from recognizable human configuration was treated as legally incapable of inheriting real property.

Bouvier's formulation adds a critical qualification: those born with mere defects of conformation — missing a limb, bearing a physical abnormality — but retaining the essential parts of the human form were not considered monsters in the legal sense and remained capable of inheriting. The doctrine was therefore not about disability or deformity generally, but about a threshold determination of whether the being was legally recognized as human.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A frightening or dangerous creature, real or imaginary; colloquially, a person of extreme cruelty or wickedness. (Note: Wiktionary's primary entry for this term is a surname reference; common usage reflects the popular sense.)

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Something of unnatural size, shape, or quality; a prodigy; an animal or plant departing greatly from the usual type; a person of unnatural wickedness or cruelty.

The popular meaning and the legal meaning share a root in the idea of radical departure from natural form, but diverge sharply in application. The legal doctrine was not a moral judgment or a metaphor — it was a property rule with concrete consequences for land inheritance. Where common usage describes monstrousness as excess or evil, the legal doctrine used the term as a term of art governing legal capacity.

Common Confusion

The doctrine is sometimes misread as disqualifying all persons born with physical disabilities or deformities from inheritance. This is incorrect. The historical sources are consistent that mere defect of conformation — even severe — did not trigger the doctrine. The disqualification applied only to births so extreme as to fall outside the recognized form of humankind entirely. Bouvier explicitly preserves inheritance capacity for those retaining essential human parts. Modern readers encountering this term in historical legal sources should resist the temptation to read it as a general incapacity rule.

Why It Matters in Research

This term is almost entirely a historical artifact with no operative legal force in modern Anglo-American law. Researchers will encounter it in pre-20th century property law sources, inheritance treatises, and early American legal dictionaries. It appears in Bracton, Coke on Littleton, and Blackstone's Commentaries — the foundational authorities cited across all four source dictionaries — and thus surfaces in any research touching those texts.

The key research trap is anachronistic interpretation. A 19th-century treatise citing the monster doctrine is not necessarily endorsing it as current law; many were already treating it as a received historical rule of uncertain practical application. Researchers should also note that the doctrine raises questions that intersected with early medical jurisprudence — Bouvier cites Dunglison's Human Physiology and Beck's Medical Jurisprudence alongside Blackstone, signaling that by the early 19th century the doctrine had become as much a medico-legal curiosity as an operative property rule.

Burrill's entry adds a significant navigational note: MONSTER in Law French (monstre, mouster, mustre) means something entirely different — a church or monastery. This is a false cognate that could mislead a researcher working with Law French sources or Norman legal texts. The two meanings are unrelated in substance.

Historical Dictionary Support

All four source dictionaries converge on the same core formulation: a human birth not having the shape of mankind cannot inherit, regardless of legitimacy. Black's (both editions) and Burrill's reproduce nearly identical language drawn from Bracton and Coke. The uniformity reflects that this was a received doctrine rather than a contested rule — none of the dictionaries suggest active litigation or disagreement on the underlying principle.

Bouvier diverges usefully from the others by articulating the limiting principle: the doctrine applies only at the extreme threshold of non-human form, not to the merely deformed. This qualification, sourced to Blackstone and Beck, is the most practically important clarification in the historical sources and is absent from Black's. Researchers relying only on Black's may therefore miss the scope limitation that Bouvier preserves.

None of the historical dictionaries grapple with what evidentiary standard applied, who made the determination, or how the rule interacted with legitimacy doctrine. These are questions the sources leave open.

Jurisdictional Note

The doctrine derives from English common law and was received into American law through Blackstone and Coke. There is no evidence it was ever applied with any regularity in American courts, and it carries no force in any modern U.S. jurisdiction. Researchers working in comparative or civil law contexts should note that civilian traditions addressed similar questions through personhood doctrine rather than inheritance incapacity rules.

MONSTERmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

A prodigious birth; & hu- man birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind; which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage. | Bract. fol. 5; Co. Litt. 7, 8; 2 Bl. Comm. 81 246. L. Fr. In

MONSTERmain

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

A prodigious birth; a human birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind, which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage. Bract. fol. 5; Co. Litt. 7, 8; 2 BL Comm. 246.

MONSTERmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

An animal which has a conformation contrary to the order of na- ture. 2 Dungl. Hum. Phys. 422. It is said that a monster, although born of a woman in lawful wedlock, cannot in- herit. Those who have, however, the es- sential parts of the human form, and have merely some defect of conformation, are capable of inheriting, if otherwise quali- fied; 2 Bla. Com. 246; 1 Beck, Med. Jur. 366; Co. Litt. 7,8; Dig. 1. 5. 14; 1 Swift, Syst. 331; Fred. Code, pt. 1, b. 1, t. 4, § 4. No living human birth, however much it may differ from human shape, can be lawfully destroyed. Traill, Med. Jur. 47. See Briand, Méd. Lég. pt. 1, c. 6, art. 2, § 3; 1 Foderé, Méd. Lég. § 402, MONSTRANS DE DROIT (Fr. show- ing of right). A common-law process by which restitution of personal or real prop- erty is obtained from the crown by a sub- ject. Chitty, Prerog. of Cr. 345; 8 Bla. Com. 256. By this process, when the facts of the title of the crown are already on record, the facts on which the plaintiff re- lies, not inconsistent with such record, are shown, and judgment of the court prayed thereon. The judgment, if against the crown, is that of ouster le main, which vests possession in the subject without exe- cution. Bac. Abr. Prerogative (E); 1 And. 181; 5 Leigh 518; 12 Gratt. 564. Monstrans de droit was preferred either on the common-law side of the court of chancery, or in the exchequer, and will not come before the corresponding divisions in the high court of justice. (Jud. Act, 1873, s. 34.) MONSTRANS DE FAIT (Fr. show- ing of a deed). A profert. Bac. Abr. Pleas. MONSTRAVERUNT, WRIT OF. In English Law. A writ which lies for the tenants of an ancient demesne who hold by free charter, and not for those tenants who hold by copy of court-roll, or by the rod, according to the custom of the manor. Fitzh. N. В. 31. ΜΟΝΤΑΝNA. One of the states of the United States. Congress, by an act approved May 26, 1864 (R. S. $1903), created the territory and defined its boun- daries, providing also that the United States might divide the territory or change its boundaries in such manner as may be deemed expedient; and further, that the rights of person and property pertaining to the Indians in the territory shall not without their consent be included within the territorial limits of jurisdiction. By act of congress approved March 1, 1872, a tract of land in the territories of Montana and Wyoming, lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, is reserved and withdrawn from settlement under the laws of the United States and dedicated and set apart as a public park for the benefit and enjoy- ment of the people; R. S. $ 2474; and by act of April 15, 1874, a tract of land at the northern boun- dary is set apart as a reservation for the Gros Ventre Piegan, Blood, Blaekfoot, River Crow, and such other Indians as the President may, from time to time, see fit to locate therein. 18 Stat. at L. 28. The act providing for the admission of Montana into the Union as one of the states was passed Feb- ruary 22, 1889, and the proclamation announcing its admission was on November 8, 1889. The constitution was adopted August 17, 1869, and ratified by the people October 1, 1889. MONTES PIETATIS, MONTS DE

MONSTERn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

Something of unnatural size, shape, or quality; a prodigy; an enormity; a marvel. A monster or marvel. Chaucer. Specifically , an animal or plant departing greatly from the usual type, as by having too many limbs. Any thing or person of unnatural or excessive ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty.

MONSTERa.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

Monstrous in size. Pope.

MONSTERv.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

To make monstrous. [Obs.] Shak.

Monstername

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

A surname.

monsternoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

A terrifying and dangerous creature, especially one of an imaginary or mythical kind. | A terrifying and dangerous creature, especially one of an imaginary or mythical kind. | A cruel, heartless, or antisocial person, especially a criminal. | A terrifying and dangerous creature, especially one of an imaginary or mythical kind. | A badly behaved person, especially a child; a brat. | A terrifying and dangerous creature, especially one of an imaginary or mythical kind. | A prodigy; someone very talented in a specific domain. | A creature of unnatural or highly unusual shape or form (which makes a frightening or unpleasant impression). | Something very or unusually large. | A creature of unnatural or highly unusual shape or form (which makes a frightening or unpleasant impression). | A deformed animal or person (especially, a severely deformed one); in previous centuries often taken as an ill omen at the time of its birth. (Offensive when applied to humans in modern usage.) | A creature of unnatural or highly unusual shape or form (which makes a frightening or unpleasant impression). | A deformed animal or person (especially, a severely deformed one); in previous centuries often taken as an ill omen at the time of its birth. (Offensive when applied to humans in modern usage.) | A disabled person. | A bizarre or whimsical creature. | A non-player character that player(s) fight against in role-playing games; a mob

monsteradj

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Very large; worthy of a monster. | Great; very good; excellent.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In