Definition
In law, singular has two principal uses:
1. Each or individual — most commonly encountered in the drafting formula "all and singular," where it reinforces that every individual item or person within a described class is covered, not merely the group taken collectively.
2. One only; not plural — the grammatical sense, applied when construing the number of words in a statute, deed, will, or other legal instrument. In this usage, singular may expand to include the plural (and vice versa) depending on the intent of the instrument or controlling rules of construction. A bequest to "my nearest relation," for example, is not necessarily limited to a single person; courts construe it to reach all relations standing in the nearest degree. Similarly, a statutory term stated in the singular may encompass multiple persons or things unless context requires otherwise.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Being only one of a larger population; individual. Also: unique, exceptional, out of the ordinary. In grammar, referring to only one thing or person.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Separate or apart from others; single; distinct. Existing by itself; individual.
The common and legal meanings overlap in the grammatical sense — both treat singular as the opposite of plural. The legal gap opens where common usage stops: law does not treat the singular/plural distinction as fixed. Statutory construction rules and equitable interpretation of wills actively override the grammatical singular, reading it as plural when context demands. A researcher encountering "singular" in a legal instrument should resist the instinct to read it as strictly one.
Common Confusion
Singular is sometimes read as a restriction — as though a singular noun in a deed or statute caps the class at one person or thing. This misreads how legal interpretation works. The default rule in most jurisdictions (and codified in English legislation by 13 & 14 Vict. c. 21) is that the singular includes the plural unless a contrary intent appears. The phrase "all and singular" is itself evidence that drafters used singular not to restrict but to ensure completeness — reaching every individual member of a class precisely so none could claim exclusion by arguing they were not covered as a group.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter singular most often in three places: drafting formulas, statutory construction, and property/succession instruments.
In drafting formulas, "all and singular" is a set phrase of conveyancing and probate practice. It signals exhaustive enumeration. Researchers reading older deeds, grants, or letters patent should treat the phrase as a term of art and not parse "singular" in isolation.
In statutory construction, the singular-includes-plural rule is now nearly universal by operation of interpretation acts or codified construction canons. But this was not always so clear, and older cases debated whether a statute using a singular noun reached multiple persons. When reading pre-20th-century case law on statutory interpretation, note whether the court applied a strict grammatical rule or the equitable expansion rule — the answer often turned on when the jurisdiction adopted a formal interpretation act.
In wills and testamentary instruments, Bouvier's example of "my nearest relation" is the classic trap. Equity courts regularly construed singular nouns in bequests to reach a class, refusing to disinherit multiple equally-situated relatives on the strength of a grammatical accident. Researchers working in chancery records or equity reporters should expect this expansive construction and look for it explicitly in the court's reasoning.
Anderson's Dictionary of Law simply cross-references NUMBER, which is a useful pointer: the conceptual home of this issue in 19th-century legal dictionaries was the number-in-grammar problem, not a standalone doctrine of singularity.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources agree on the core definition — singular means one, individual, each — but diverge in how much they develop the legal consequences.
Black's (both editions) is spare: "each; as in the expression 'all and singular.' Also, individual." The 2nd edition adds cross-references to Singular Successor and Singular Title, acknowledging that singular functions as a modifier in formal compound terms without elaborating further.
Rapalje & Lawrence goes further, noting the English statutory rule (13 & 14 Vict. c. 21) and its American parallel, and introducing the Scots law concept of singular successor — a purchaser, distinguished from an heir — as a specific legal compound. This is the richest single-entry treatment across the shelf sources.
Bouvier's is the most practically instructive on the interpretation problem, citing chancery authority for the proposition that a bequest to "my heir" could reach three heirs, and "my nearest relation" could reach an entire degree of kinship. Bouvier frames this as an equitable canon, not merely a grammatical one.
What the historical sources collectively miss: they do not address the modern statutory interpretation context, where singular-includes-plural rules are codified in federal and state codes and applied mechanically as default canons. The older sources treat the issue as one of judicial construction case by case; modern researchers should know that the same outcome is now often mandated by statute before a court even reaches equitable reasoning.
Jurisdictional Note
The singular-includes-plural canon is codified in federal law (1 U.S.C. § 1) and in the interpretation acts of virtually every U.S. state, as well as in English legislation dating to 1850. The canon applies unless context or the instrument expressly provides otherwise. Scots law preserves a distinct use of singular in the phrase singular successor, which has no precise equivalent in English or American common law.