Definition
Moota canum (also rendered muta canum in some sources) is a Latin phrase from old English law meaning a pack of dogs. The term appears in historical legal contexts related to the keeping and regulation of hunting dogs, where the size and composition of a lord's pack could carry legal significance with respect to hunting rights, forest law, and seigneurial privilege.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering this term will almost certainly find it in sources predating the nineteenth century, particularly in records touching on forest law, manorial rights, and the law of the chase. English forest law was an elaborate body of royal and seigneurial regulation governing hunting, and the maintenance of a pack of dogs was both a mark of status and a legally controlled activity. The number and type of dogs a person was permitted to keep could determine whether they were lawfully exercising a hunting right or trespassing on a royal or noble franchise.
The term is effectively dead in modern legal usage. Any appearance in a research corpus signals a pre-modern source dealing with feudal tenure, manorial administration, or forest and game law. Researchers working backward from modern property or environmental law into its historical roots may encounter moota canum in the context of rights of warren, rights of chase, or the broader framework of common law property rights in wild animals.
Be alert to variant spellings. The Latin muta (meaning a pack or kennel) also appears as moota, and the phrase may be rendered differently depending on the scribe or copyist. Cowell's Interpreter, the source cited by both Black's editions, is a seventeenth-century legal glossary and represents the primary documentary anchor for this term in the common law tradition.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's Law Dictionary and its second edition define moota canum identically: "a pack of dogs," with attribution to Cowell. John Cowell's The Interpreter (1607) was a foundational early-modern English legal glossary, and both Black's editions rely on it without elaboration. Neither edition contextualizes the term within forest law or explains its practical legal significance, limiting their utility beyond confirming the bare meaning.
The brevity of the entry across both sources reflects the term's narrow and archaic application. Neither edition offers doctrinal development, case authority, or statutory context. Researchers should treat the Black's entries as a pointer to Cowell rather than as independent analysis.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This term is specific to old English law and has no recognized counterpart in American, Scottish, or other common law jurisdictions. It is unlikely to appear in any operative legal context outside of historical English manorial and forest law records.
---