Definition
"Statute of ___" is a naming convention used to identify major English legislation by the place, reign, or occasion of its enactment rather than by a descriptive title. The phrase is a prefix, not a standalone term. It appears throughout legal history as part of compound names — Statute of Westminster, Statute of Frauds, Statute of Limitations, Statute of Uses — each identifying a distinct body of law. The phrase signals that what follows is either a proper historical name or a shorthand for a class of legislation.
Two usages dominate legal research:
1. NAMED ENGLISH STATUTES: Medieval and early modern English legislation was routinely identified by the place of Parliament's session or by the regnal year and subject matter. "Statute of Westminster" (first and second), "Statute of Gloucester," "Statute of Mortmain," and "Statute of Quia Emptores" are examples. These were not always unified acts; the Statute of Westminster the First (1275), for instance, comprised fifty-one chapters, each functioning as what would now be called a separate act of Parliament. The names were imposed by usage and later systematized by legal writers.
2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSES OF LEGISLATION: In modern American and English usage, "statute of ___" also names categories of law defined by their purpose — statute of limitations, statute of repose, statute of frauds. These phrases identify a type of law rather than any single enactment, and the rules they describe vary by jurisdiction and subject matter.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers occasionally conflate "statute of limitations" and "statute of repose." Both cut off legal claims, but they operate differently. A statute of limitations runs from the time a claim accrues (often when injury is discovered or reasonably discoverable). A statute of repose runs from a fixed event — typically the completion of construction or the date a product was sold — regardless of when harm occurred or was discovered. The distinction matters because statutes of repose are generally harder to toll or waive. See the Encyclopedia entry above for full treatment.
Separately, the named historical statutes — Statute of Westminster, Statute of Uses, Statute of Frauds — are sometimes cited as if they are still operative law. In American jurisdictions, most were received into colonial common law and then superseded, codified, or abolished. Their operative legal force, if any, must be verified jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase "statute of" in an older source rarely signals a single, locatable document. It may refer to:
— A medieval English act whose text survives in Statutes of the Realm or Ruffhead's compilation, not in any modern code.
— An American colonial or early state reception of English law, which may have been incorporated wholesale, partially adopted, or rejected.
— A functional category (limitations, repose, frauds) whose specific rules differ significantly across jurisdictions and have been amended repeatedly.
When reading pre-twentieth-century American cases or treatises, watch for "statute of frauds" and "statute of limitations" used as if they describe uniform law. They do not. The Statute of Frauds of 1677 was adopted in varying forms across American states; some states have abolished the original categories while retaining others. Statutes of limitations were, and remain, highly jurisdiction-specific and subject matter-specific.
For the named historical statutes, Black's and Bouvier's entries are jumping-off points, not endpoints. The Statute of Westminster 2nd (1285) introduced the writ of elegit and the action of waste; the Statute of Quia Emptores (1290, 18 Edward I) abolished subinfeudation and has genuine continuing relevance in some American property law contexts. Researchers working in property, future interests, or feudal tenure history will encounter these by name and need to locate the actual statutory text rather than relying on dictionary summaries.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's entry under "Statute of" directs readers specifically to Quia Emptores (18 Edward I), treating the phrase primarily as a pointer to a named medieval act. The cross-reference to "Barring. Ob. St. 167-169" is a citation to Barring on Statutes — a real but now obscure source — and illustrates a pattern common in early editions of Black's: the dictionary entry functions as a finding aid to treatise literature rather than a self-contained explanation.
Bouvier's takes a different approach, defining the phrase in the context of Westminster 1st (1275) and noting that its fifty-one chapters correspond to what is now called separate acts of Parliament. This is a useful structural observation: medieval English legislation did not map onto modern concepts of discrete statutory acts, and Bouvier's correctly flags this. Neither dictionary addresses the modern functional usage ("statute of limitations") under this heading; those terms receive their own entries and should be consulted directly.
Both sources reflect a nineteenth-century common law world in which English statutory history was live research material for American practitioners. That world has receded, but the named statutes still appear in title examinations, property disputes, and academic legal history, making the historical dictionary entries a useful first orientation even if they require significant supplementation.
---
Jurisdictional Note
American states received English statutes in force as of varying reception dates (commonly the date of colonial settlement or independence). Whether a named English statute — Quia Emptores, the Statute of Uses, the Statute of Frauds — is operative, codified, or abolished in a given state requires independent research. Some states expressly abolished feudal tenure rules; others have retained them by judicial decision.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
"Statutes of Repose vs. Statutes of Limitation" — Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia (civpro_133)
---