Definition
Nul disseisin (Law French: "no disseisin") is a plea of the general issue in a real action, by which a defendant denies that any disseisin — that is, any wrongful dispossession of the plaintiff from freehold land — ever took place. The plea operates as a flat denial of the core factual allegation underlying the plaintiff's claim to recover possession of real property. Rather than raising a specific affirmative defense, the defendant simply puts the plaintiff to proof that a disseisin occurred at all.
Common Confusion
NUL DISSEISIN vs. NUL TORT: The two pleas are closely related and historically paired. Nul tort ("no wrong") is the broader denial — the defendant asserts that no wrong whatsoever was committed. Nul disseisin is the more specific denial — the defendant denies only that the particular wrong of disseisin occurred. Lord Coke treated the two as jointly constituting the general issue in assise, which has led some sources to conflate them or treat them as interchangeable. They are not identical: nul tort was the proper general issue in certain real actions, while nul disseisin was the appropriate plea specifically where the underlying claim rested on an alleged disseisin. A researcher encountering both pleas in a single record should not assume redundancy; the pairing was a pleading convention reflecting the dual structure of the general issue in assise.
NUL DISSEISIN vs. NUL TIEL RECORD: These pleas are sometimes confused because both are Law French general-issue denials beginning with "nul." Nul tiel record ("no such record") is an entirely different plea — it denies the existence of a record on which the plaintiff relies, not the occurrence of a disseisin. The two pleas address wholly different matters and arise in different procedural contexts.
Why It Matters in Research
Nul disseisin is a term almost entirely confined to the pleading practice of English real actions prior to the abolition of the forms of action. Researchers encountering it in historical records — particularly in actions of novel disseisin or other possessory assises — should understand that its presence signals a general-issue plea, not a substantive affirmative defense. The defendant raising nul disseisin is forcing the plaintiff to prove the foundational fact of wrongful dispossession; there is no concession of any element of the claim.
The term appears infrequently in American sources for a reason: real actions on the English model never took strong root in most American jurisdictions, and the common-law forms of action were abolished in equity-merged practice by the mid-nineteenth century. References to nul disseisin in American legal dictionaries are therefore largely historical and taxonomic, preserved for comprehension of English common-law materials rather than active pleading practice.
Researchers working with medieval and early modern English plea rolls should note that the entry of nul disseisin (or its abbreviated forms) in the record does not describe what the defendant proved — only what the defendant initially denied. The subsequent record will reflect jury verdict or other disposition. Searching corpus materials by this plea alone will not reliably surface cases decided in the defendant's favor.
The connection to disseisin itself is essential context. Disseisin was a specific legal concept — wrongful ouster of a freeholder from possession — and the general issue plea tracked that concept precisely. A defendant raising nul disseisin was not denying ownership, title, or right; the plea addressed only the act of dispossession.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries agree on the core definition: nul disseisin is the general issue in a real action denying that any disseisin occurred. Burrill adds the most procedural texture, citing Blackstone (3 Bl. Com. 305) for the plea's classification and noting Coke's pairing of nul disseisin with nul tort as jointly constituting the general issue in assise (Co. Litt. 283a). Bouvier's and Black's entries are brief, consistent with the term's status as a pleading formula requiring more historical context than substantive legal analysis.
None of the three dictionaries addresses the American reception — or non-reception — of real actions, which is the most practically significant point for a researcher working primarily in American sources. The entries treat the term as self-evidently familiar to common-law practitioners, reflecting their nineteenth-century audience. Modern researchers should not assume that currency in these dictionaries indicates ongoing procedural relevance.
Jurisdictional Note
Nul disseisin has no active procedural significance in modern American jurisdictions. Real actions in the English common-law form were largely displaced in the United States by ejectment and, subsequently, by modern civil procedure. The term survives only as a historical marker in materials concerning English or early colonial pleading practice.