Definition
The apparent meaning or substance of a written instrument as it appears on the face of the document. To purport is to seem or appear to have a particular character, meaning, or effect. As a noun in legal usage, "purport" refers to what a document conveys to a reader from its face — the substance and import of its language — as opposed to a verbatim reproduction of it.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Import, intention or purpose." Also historically, "a disguise; a covering" (now obsolete).
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Design or tendency; meaning; import; tenor." Webster illustrates the term with literary quotations emphasizing scope and apparent intention.
The common and legal senses are close but not identical. In ordinary speech, "purport" often functions as a verb meaning "to claim or appear to be" — as in "a document purporting to be a will." Legal usage preserves this sense but adds precision: as a noun, purport specifically describes what a document appears to mean from its face, confined to the written instrument itself rather than any claimed intent behind it. The critical legal function is evidentiary and pleading-related, not merely descriptive.
Common Confusion
PURPORT vs. TENOR: These terms are frequently used interchangeably in ordinary speech, but in law they carry distinct meanings. The purport of an instrument is its substance — what it appears to mean when read. The tenor of an instrument is its exact content — a verbatim copy or reproduction. In criminal pleading, the distinction mattered practically: an indictment could set out the purport of a document without reproducing it word for word, but where tenor was required, exactness was mandatory. Confusing the two in historical pleading research can lead to misreading whether a document's precise language was in issue.
PURPORT vs. IMPORT: These terms overlap in common and legal usage, both referring to meaning or substance. "Import" is the broader term, applicable to statements, conduct, and instruments alike. "Purport" in legal usage is more narrowly anchored to the face of a written instrument.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter "purport" most often in two distinct contexts: criminal pleading doctrine and the law of instruments and documents.
In criminal pleading, the purport/tenor distinction was a live technical issue in indictments through the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. An indictment charging forgery, for example, had to allege either the purport or the tenor of the forged document. Getting this wrong was grounds for challenge. Historical treatises and cases on criminal pleading — particularly forgery, fraud, and libel — use "purport" in this narrow technical sense, and researchers should not read it simply as "meaning."
In the law of instruments — wills, deeds, contracts, negotiable instruments — "purport" identifies what the document appears to do or authorize on its face, independent of extrinsic evidence. A document "purporting to be" a will or a deed invokes a facial, apparent-authority standard. Courts use this framing when authenticity or authority is itself in question.
As a verb, "purports to" in modern drafting and case law signals facial appearance or apparent effect without conceding actual legal validity — a careful usage researchers should note when reading court opinions, which often signal skepticism or a reserved question through this phrasing.
Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century sources should be aware that the purport/tenor distinction was treated with considerable rigor in English common law pleading and was carried into American practice with varying degrees of strictness by jurisdiction.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are in strong agreement on the core definition. Black's (both editions), Bouvier, and Burrill all define purport as the substance of an instrument as it appears on its face, and all distinguish it explicitly from tenor as an exact copy. Burrill traces the term to the Latin proportum and the French porter (to carry), lending it the sense of what a document "carries" or conveys to the reader. Anderson's Dictionary adds a useful gloss for pleading context: in libel, exact words were required, while purport sufficed for describing the substance of a communication in other pleading contexts — a distinction researchers will find relevant in historical defamation and forgery cases.
None of the historical dictionaries address the modern verbal usage — "purporting to be" — which has become the dominant legal usage in contemporary opinions and statutes. The historical sources are focused entirely on the noun in the pleading and instruments context. Researchers relying solely on these dictionaries will have an incomplete picture of how the term functions in modern legal writing.
Jurisdictional Note
The technical purport/tenor distinction in criminal pleading was more rigorously enforced in English common law and some American jurisdictions following it closely. American jurisdictions varied in strictness, and procedural reform statutes in many states during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries reduced or eliminated the formal pleading distinction. Researchers should check applicable local rules and reform statutes when tracing forgery or fraud indictments in a specific jurisdiction.