OBLITERATION - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

OBLITERATIONAuthored

The Law Mind • 1011 words

Definition

The erasure, blotting out, or cancellation of written words in a legal instrument. In law, obliteration does not require that the original writing be rendered illegible. A line drawn through text constitutes obliteration even if the underlying words remain fully readable — the physical act of marking, rather than the practical result of concealment, is the operative fact.

Obliteration most frequently arises in the law of wills, where a testator's physical alteration of a testamentary instrument raises questions about revocation, partial revocation, and the validity of remaining provisions. The legal consequences depend on: (1) whether the obliteration was intentional, (2) whether it was accompanied by the requisite formalities, and (3) whether it affected the whole instrument or only a portion.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Total destruction of something; the concealing or covering of something; the cancellation, erasure, or deletion of something.

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "The act of obliterating, or the state of being obliterated; extinction."

The common meaning implies thoroughness — obliteration in ordinary speech suggests complete destruction or erasure, leaving nothing behind. The legal meaning is narrower and more technical: even a visible, legible marking can constitute obliteration. A researcher who imports the common sense of the word into legal analysis risks misreading courts that treat a single pencil line through a clause as a full obliteration, regardless of whether the underlying text remains readable.

Common Confusion

Obliteration, interlineation, and cancellation are distinct but frequently conflated concepts in the law of wills. Cancellation typically refers to acts such as tearing, burning, or drawing lines across the whole instrument with revocatory intent. Interlineation refers to writing added between existing lines, usually as an attempted amendment. Obliteration is the specific act of marking out or erasing existing words, whether or not the words are rendered invisible. The three may overlap in fact — a testator might cancel by obliterating — but courts and statutes treat them as separate operative acts with potentially different legal consequences, particularly under jurisdiction-specific Wills Act formalities.

Why It Matters in Research

Wills corpus traps: The word "obliteration" in historical case law does not require that text be unreadable. Researchers tracing whether a particular clause was effectively revoked must look past legibility and examine the court's reasoning about intent and physical act. Pre-20th-century opinions are especially prone to conflating obliteration with cancellation; the terms appear interchangeably in some jurisdictions even when the legal tests differ.

Partial obliteration problems: Bouvier's entry identifies the central historical puzzle — obliteration of part of a will, when accompanied by intent to revoke only that part, may leave the remainder valid. But the analysis changes sharply under statutory Wills Acts that require alterations to be attested with the same formality as the original instrument. A researcher working across English and American authorities must track whether the relevant jurisdiction follows the common law rule or a statutory overlay, and when that statute was enacted.

The legibility question: Black's (both editions) preserves the Pennsylvania rule that legibility is irrelevant to whether obliteration has occurred. This principle is not universal in historical sources and has been treated inconsistently across jurisdictions. When reading older opinions, confirm which test the court applies before drawing conclusions about whether an alteration was legally operative.

Evidentiary implications: Where obliterated text is still readable, courts have disagreed on whether the original words may be given effect — either under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation or under probate rules governing the admission of partially altered instruments. The corpus connections between obliteration and dependent relative revocation are significant and underexplored in secondary literature.

Anderson's Dictionary confusion: The Anderson's entry provided under this term actually defines "obligation," not obliteration — a misfiling in historical compilation. Researchers relying on Anderson's for obliteration-specific doctrine should treat that source as absent for this term.

Historical Dictionary Support

Black's (1st and 2nd editions) agree on the core proposition: obliteration is not limited to acts that render text unreadable. Both editions cite the same Pennsylvania authority for this rule. The 2nd edition adds a Colorado case (Glass v. Scott) confirming the same principle, suggesting the rule had cross-jurisdictional acceptance by the early 20th century.

Burrill's defines obliteration economically — "a blotting out of writing" — and cross-references rasure (the scraping or shaving away of writing from parchment), a historically distinct but related act. Burrill's brevity reflects the term's relatively settled character by the time of his compilation; the significant doctrinal complexity lay in the consequences of obliteration rather than its definition.

Bouvier's is the most substantive of the shelf sources on this term. It addresses the partial obliteration problem directly and flags the divergence between the common law approach (partial revocation with intent is effective) and the English Wills Act requirement of attestation formalities for any alteration. Bouvier's citations are to mid-to-late 19th-century Massachusetts, New Jersey, and English authority — useful as starting points for historical research, though the specific case references should be verified in primary sources before reliance.

None of the historical dictionaries address obliteration in contexts outside wills — commercial instruments, land records, or public documents — even though the act of obliterating such documents carries legal consequences in those domains as well. Modern research extending beyond testamentary law will find limited shelf-source support and should look to case law and treatises directly.

Jurisdictional Note

Under the English Wills Act 1837 and its American statutory descendants, obliterations and other alterations to a will are not effective unless made with the same formalities required for original execution — typically attestation by witnesses. At common law, an unattested obliteration made with revocatory intent could be effective. Many American jurisdictions have codified variants of the English rule, but the specifics vary significantly; researchers must identify the controlling statute for the relevant jurisdiction and time period.

OBLITERATIONmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

Erasure or biotting out of written words. Obliteration is not limited to effacing the letters of a will or scratching them out or blotting them so completely that they cannot be read. A line drawn through the writing is obliteration, though it may leave it as leg- ible as it was before. 58 Pa. St. 244.

OBLITERATIONmain

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

out of written words. Obliteration is not limited to effucing the letters of a will or scratching them out or blotting them so completely that they cannot be read. A line drawn through the writing is obliteration, though it may leave it as legible as it was before. See Glass v. Scott, 14 Colo. App. 377, 60 Pac. 186; Evans’ Appeal, Erasure or blotting

OBLITERATIONmain

Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890

of the parties and the demands of reason and equity were considered.1 2. A legal duty; a legal liability.2 A valid, subsisting obligation consists of a legal debt or duty, and the remedy to enforce it.3 3. An undertaking under seal; also, the instrument or writing by which it is evidenced. A bond, or other writing in the nature of a bond. In a popular sense, any act by which a person becomes bound to or for another, or to perform something.5 See BOND. Obligee. He to whom an obligation or bond is given. "No State shall pass any ing the Obligation of Contracts." 1 Law impair The constitutions of the several States contain a similar restriction upon the exercise of legislative power.2 The reference is to the means provided by law by which a contract can be enforced, - by which the parties can be obliged to perform it. The "obligation" is found in the terms of the agreement, sanctioned by moral and legal principles. It includes everything within the obligatory scope of the contract. Implies a duty, that may be enforced by law, to perform the contract according to its terms.. Consists in the remedy given by law to enforce the contract. While this remedy may be changed by an enactment, it cannot be taken away or lessened, at least not without leaving the parties "a substantial Obligor. He who enters into a bond or remedy," according to the course of justice as it existed when the contract was made. See further IMobligation.6 A "co-obligor" is a person who is jointly bound, by the same instrument, with another person. Obligation is a generic word, including every kind of contract by which parties bind themselves. Used without limitation, will include a coupon bond payable to bearer." An obligation is "a deed in writing, whereby one man doth bind himself to another to pay a sum of money or do some other thing." No precise form of words is necessary. Any memorandum under seal, whereby a debt is acknowledged to be owing, will obligate the party to pay. The terms must at least create a debitum in præsenti, though the solvendum may be in futuro, even after the death of the obligor.8 Obligation of a contract. The law which binds a party to a contract to perform his undertaking.9 The power and efficacy of the law which applies to and enforces performance of the contract, or the payment of an equivalent for non-performance.10 1 Hadley, Rom. Law, 235, 245, 252, 255. 2 Crandall v. Bryan, 15 How. Pr. 55-56 (1857). 3 Cocke v. Hoffman, 5 Lea, 112 (1880); 6 Barb. 583. Smith v. Ellington, 14 Ga. 383 (1853); Hargroves v. Cooke, 15 id. 330 (1854). • Strong v. Wheaton, 38 Barb. 624 (1861). See also 2 Bl. Com. 340; 1 Ark. 112; 6 Minn. 353; 38 L. T. R. 378. 2 Bl. Com. 340. Obli-jee'; obli-gor'. * [Sinton v. County of Carter, 23 F. R. 535, 538 (1885). • Cover v. Stem, 67 Md. 451 (1887), Alvey, C. J., quoting Shep. Touch. 367, and holding that the words "At my death, my estate or my executor may pay Ann Cover $3,000David Engel," created neither an obligation to pay money, nor, under the Maryland act of 1884, a will. Is not confined to effacing letters or words so that they cannot be read. A line drawn through a writing (testamentary) obliterates it, though left as 1 Constitution, Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1. 2 Consult Story, Const. § 1373; Cooley, Const. Lim. 273-94. 3 Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 U. S. 206 (1880), Field, J.; Seibert v. Lewis, 122 id. 295 (1887). 4 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. *572 (1837), M'Lean, J. • Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 600 (1877). * [Wachter v. Famachon, 62 Wis. 121 (1885), Orton, J. 7 Bank of Louisville v. Trustees of Public Schools, 83 Ky. 227 (1885); McCracken County v. Mercantile Trust Co., 84 id. 348-52 (1886), cases. See also 1 How. 311; 15 id. 301; 8 Wheat. 1; 16 Wall. 317; 70 Ala. 151-52; 9 • [Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 197 (1819), MarCal. 83; 31 Conn. 265; 38 Ga. 369; 15 Iowa, 130; 4 Litt. shall, C. J. 10 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 318 (1827), Trimble, J. See also Wachter v. Famachon, 62 Wis. 121-22 (1885). *36; 29 Minn. 527-32, 546; 41 Pa. 446; 11 R. I. 354; 37 Vt. 602; 18 Gratt. 270. R. S. § 5413: Act 30 June, 1864.

OBLITERATIONn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

The act of obliterating, or the state of being obliterated; extinction. Sir. M. Hale.

obliterationnoun

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.

The total destruction of something. | The concealing or covering of something. | The cancellation, erasure or deletion of something. | The cancellation of the function, structure, or both of a vessel or organ; for example, the occlusion of the lumen of a duct, blood vessel, or lymphatic vessel, be it solely functional (as when squeezed by nearby mass effect or inflammation) or both structural and functional (as when clogged with thrombus, embolus, or fibrosis).

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In