Definition
Possibilitas (Latin) is a term from the old common law of real property, meaning "possibility" or "a possibility." It appears in English legal sources primarily in two maxims governing the behavior of contingent interests in land:
1. Possibilitas post dissolutionem executionis nunquam reviviscatur — A possibility will never be revived after the dissolution of its execution. Once a contingent interest has become vested and been executed, and that execution is subsequently undone or dissolved, the original possibility does not spring back into existence.
2. Post executionem status, lex non patitur possibilitatem — After the execution of an estate, the law does not suffer a possibility. Once an estate has fully vested and been carried into effect, there is no room for a mere possibility to co-exist with or displace it.
Together, these maxims express a foundational principle of classical property law: contingent or inchoate interests in land are extinguished by execution, and dissolution of the act of execution does not restore them.
Common Confusion
Possibilitas should not be confused with the general modern law of future interests, contingent remainders, or executory interests, even though it touches the same conceptual territory. The maxims in which it appears address a specific sub-problem — the non-revival of a possibility after execution — not the full taxonomy of interests that do not yet vest. Modern property courses and codes address the same underlying concerns through different vocabulary, and a researcher encountering possibilitas in an older source should not assume direct equivalence with any particular modern doctrine without tracing the line of authority.
Why It Matters in Research
Possibilitas is a term of art encountered almost exclusively in early English real property law and appears in Law Mind sources as a doctrinal anchor for two specific maxims, not as a standalone concept with a rich standalone body of case law. Researchers will find it cited parenthetically in discussions of contingent remainders, executory interests, and the doctrine of possibilities in estates — not in modern property codes or statutes.
The primary research trap is treating possibilitas as interchangeable with the broader modern concept of a "contingent interest" or "future interest." The maxims in which possibilitas appears are specifically concerned with the non-revival of a possibility once execution has occurred — a narrower and more technical point than the general law of future interests as it developed through equity and the Statute of Uses.
Note the discrepancy between sources on the second maxim's citation: Black's Law Dictionary (1st ed.) cites 8 Bulstrode 108; Black's 2nd ed. cites 3 Bulstrode 108. Burrill does not complete the citation for the second maxim, ending mid-sentence in available versions. Researchers should treat these citations with care and verify against original reporters before relying on them.
The practical application illustrated by Burrill is instructive: a possibility that becomes executed (for example, by intermarriage creating a right) is not revived by a subsequent dissolution of that estate (such as by divorce). This example connects possibilitas directly to older doctrines of marital property and dower that are heavily documented elsewhere in the Law Mind corpus.
Because possibilitas appears almost entirely in Latin-language maxims embedded in English legal treatises, researchers working in pre-19th century property materials should be attentive to variant spellings. The 2nd edition of Black's, working from older print sources, renders the term in forms that appear to reflect typographical corruption ("Posgibilitas," "exeeutioni*"), consistent with transcription errors common in that generation of legal printing.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries are in close agreement: possibilitas means "possibility" or "a possibility," and all three anchor the term to the same two maxims. Burrill's entry is the most substantively developed, adding the illustrative gloss that dissolution of an estate by divorce after intermarriage will not revive the prior possibility — a concrete application that neither edition of Black's provides. This makes Burrill the more useful source for understanding the doctrine's practical reach.
None of the three dictionaries situate possibilitas within the broader doctrinal history of contingent remainders or the Statute of Uses, leaving that work to treatise sources. The absence of cross-referencing in these entries reflects the terse, maxim-focused approach typical of 19th-century legal dictionary treatment of Latin terms. Researchers should not read the brevity of the entries as indicating the concept is unimportant; rather, the dictionaries assume the reader is already working within a body of real property doctrine and needs the maxim translated, not explained from first principles.