Definition
In Scots law, a form of intromission — that is, dealing with or taking possession of another person's property — that is legally excused or justified by necessity. Specifically, necessary intromission arises when a surviving spouse continues in possession of the deceased spouse's goods after death for the purpose of preservation, rather than out of any claim of ownership or intent to convert the property. Because the possession is compelled by practical necessity (the need to protect the estate from waste or loss), the law does not treat it as wrongful intromission, which would otherwise expose the intromitter to liability for the full value of the estate.
The doctrine recognizes a category of lawful interference with property that would, absent the necessity, constitute an unauthorized act. It operates as a defense or justification, distinguishing the surviving spouse's protective custody from an assertion of right over the property.
---
Common Confusion
NECESSARY INTROMISSION vs. VITIOUS INTROMISSION: The critical counterpart to necessary intromission in Scots law is vitious (or vicious) intromission — unauthorized dealing with a deceased person's moveable estate without legal title. Where necessary intromission is excused by the protective purpose and the circumstances of necessity, vitious intromission is not excused and historically subjected the intromitter to universal liability for all debts of the deceased. Researchers reading historical Scots sources must be careful not to conflate these: the same physical act of taking possession can be necessary or vitious depending entirely on the actor's purpose and authorization. The distinction is one of legal characterization, not physical conduct.
NECESSARY INTROMISSION vs. LEGAL INTROMISSION: Legal intromission refers to possession under formal legal authority — by an executor, administrator, or judicial appointee. Necessary intromission is not formal or court-authorized; it is excused despite the absence of formal title, purely on the grounds of necessity. The two are distinct justifications for the same underlying act.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a term almost entirely confined to Scots law and to historical legal sources. Researchers encountering it in English-language legal dictionaries, treatises, or case reports before the twentieth century should understand it as a transplant from Scottish legal tradition, not a concept with parallel development in English common law or American jurisprudence.
The term appears most frequently in historical succession and probate contexts, particularly in discussions of the administration of moveables after death and the liability exposure of persons who handle a deceased's estate without formal appointment. Researchers working in:
— Scottish legal history, particularly pre-codification succession law
— Comparative succession law
— Historical spousal property rights
— Intromission liability generally
will find the term operative and meaningful. For common law jurisdictions, the concept has no direct analogue under that name, though the underlying policy — excusing protective possession from liability — appears in doctrines of necessity and in the treatment of surviving spouses under intestacy and administration statutes.
A key research trap: Burrill's entry cites "Wharton's Lex" (Wharton's Law Lexicon) as its authority, making this a secondary-on-secondary citation chain. Researchers should treat the definition as a summary gloss rather than a primary doctrinal statement. For authoritative Scots law treatment, primary sources in Scottish legal literature and institutional writers (such as Stair or Erskine) will carry more weight than English-language dictionary entries.
The term does not appear in American case law or statutes with any frequency. Its presence in a nineteenth-century American legal dictionary reflects the broad comparative sweep of that era's legal lexicography rather than domestic legal practice.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the only entry in the Law Mind shelf corpus. The definition is brief and largely derivative, relying on Wharton's Lex Consuetudinis (Law Lexicon) rather than primary Scottish sources. Burrill frames it correctly as a species of intromission distinguished by the element of necessity and limited to the spousal survival context, but the entry does not elaborate on the liability consequences, the evidentiary standard for establishing necessity, or the procedural posture in which the defense typically arose.
What Burrill's entry omits: the entry does not address how Scots law determined whether necessity was sufficiently established, nor does it discuss the historical development of the doctrine in relation to the broader intromission liability framework — a significant gap, because the doctrine's meaning only becomes clear against the backdrop of vitious intromission's severe consequences. Historical researchers who encounter this term in Burrill's alone should supplement with Scots institutional writers for doctrinal depth.
No other dictionary on the Law Mind shelf carries an independent entry for this term, which itself signals the term's jurisdictional narrowness and relative obscurity in the Anglo-American legal tradition.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This is a Scots law doctrine with no recognized common law equivalent under this name. It has no operative significance in English, American, or other common law jurisdictions except as a matter of comparative or historical legal scholarship. Researchers working in any jurisdiction other than Scotland (or historical Scottish legal materials) are unlikely to encounter the term in a live legal context.
---