Definition
Time of memory is a fixed legal threshold marking the boundary between antiquity and legally cognizable history. In English law, it was formally set at the commencement of the reign of Richard I (1189 A.D.). Events, rights, or customs originating before that date were said to be "beyond time of memory" or "before legal memory" — so ancient that the law treated them as immemorial. Events arising after that date were "within time of memory" and therefore capable of being proven, challenged, or litigated through ordinary evidence.
The concept served a practical function: where a party claimed an immemorial right — such as a prescriptive easement, a customary right, or a franchise — the law did not demand proof reaching back to the beginning of time. It demanded only that the right be shown to have existed from the beginning of legal memory, i.e., from 1189. If no living witness or documentary record could contradict the claim's ancient origin, the right was presumed to have always existed and was legally protected.
Lord Coke's formulation, preserved in both Black's and Burrill's, captures the standard precisely: time of memory is "when no man alive hath had any proof to the contrary, nor hath any conusance to the contrary." This framing shifts the burden — antiquity is assumed unless affirmatively disproved.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "A very long time" in ordinary speech; also, in a secondary sense, a point in time so distant that no living person has knowledge contradicting a purported right or custom.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not separately defined; the phrase was treated as a legal term of art without a distinct popular meaning.
Editorial note: The common usage of "time of memory" as simply "a very long time" is a significant dilution of the legal concept. In law, the phrase has a precise, fixed date — 1189 — not a floating sense of vague antiquity. A researcher encountering the phrase in a non-legal context should not import that precision; equally, a researcher encountering it in a legal context should not treat it as merely rhetorical.
---
Common Confusion
Time of memory is frequently conflated with "time immemorial," but the two are not always synonymous. Time immemorial is the broader concept: memory so ancient that its origin is unknown. Time of memory is the English law's technical answer to that concept — a defined starting point (1189) rather than an open-ended inquiry. In practice, courts often used the terms interchangeably, and historical sources do not always maintain the distinction. Researchers should note which sense an author intends, particularly in older materials where "time immemorial" may mean the formal Ricardian threshold or may mean something more loosely historical.
Time of memory should also be distinguished from the statute of limitations and from the equitable doctrine of laches. Both address the passage of time and the extinction of claims, but they operate through different mechanisms. The statute of limitations sets a forward-running deadline from accrual of a cause of action. Laches bars claims where unreasonable delay causes prejudice. Time of memory, by contrast, is a backward-looking threshold that establishes the outer limit of provable history for purposes of prescriptive or customary rights.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The 1189 date is an artifact of English legal history with no direct American equivalent. Researchers working in U.S. property law, easement law, or customary rights law will encounter time of memory primarily in two contexts: (1) as a conceptual ancestor to American prescription doctrine, where courts sometimes discuss it to explain why a fixed period (often 20 years) replaced the Ricardian threshold; and (2) in direct quotation from English authorities, particularly Blackstone's Commentaries and Coke, both of which are heavily cited in 18th and 19th century American property cases.
Trap for researchers: Historical American cases that cite "time immemorial" or "time of memory" may be invoking the 1189 English threshold, a colonial adaptation of that threshold, or a looser rhetorical sense of antiquity. The phrases were not always used with technical precision. Context — particularly whether the discussion concerns prescriptive rights, custom, or franchise — is essential to determining which sense is operative.
In English law sources, the Ricardian date was itself criticized as an arbitrary anachronism almost from the moment it was fixed. By Blackstone's era, the 1189 threshold had become largely a legal fiction: courts did not actually require proof dating to 1189, but rather accepted evidence of long, uninterrupted use as sufficient to presume immemorial origin. This gap between the formal rule and practical application is often visible in historical sources and can mislead researchers who take the formal rule at face value.
For researchers using the Law Mind corpus on prescriptive easements, adverse possession, or custom, time of memory appears at the foundation of the doctrine but is rarely the operative rule in modern cases. Follow the cross-references to laches and prescription to trace how the concept migrated and transformed.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Burrill's agree on the core definition: time of memory commences with Richard I's reign and divides legally cognizable history from legal antiquity. Both cite 2 Blackstone's Commentaries 31 as the primary authority, and Burrill's adds Hale's History of the Common Law as a supporting source. The Hale quotation preserved in Burrill's is particularly useful for its explicit articulation of the boundary: "Whatsoever was before that time is before time of memory. What is since that time is, in a legal sense, said to be within or since time of memory."
Both sources include Coke's definition — "when no man alive hath had any proof to the contrary, nor hath any conusance to the contrary" — though neither dictionary's excerpt is complete (both entries appear truncated). The Coke formulation is significant because it grounds the doctrine not in the calendar date but in the absence of contradicting memory, which explains how the concept could function as a working legal standard rather than a dead letter requiring 600-year proof chains.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: neither Black's nor Burrill's discusses the American reception of the doctrine, the displacement of the 1189 threshold by fixed statutory periods, or the relationship between time of memory and modern prescription. Researchers should not assume that the English doctrine traveled intact to American jurisdictions; in most U.S. states, prescription periods are set by statute and no Ricardian analogue was formally adopted.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Time of memory as a formal legal threshold (1189) is an English common law concept. American jurisdictions generally replaced it with fixed prescriptive periods, typically ranging from 10 to 21 years depending on state. In jurisdictions that retained strong common law foundations, older cases may invoke time of memory by name, but the operative standard is almost always the statutory period. Researchers should not assume the 1189 date has legal force in any U.S. jurisdiction without case-specific confirmation.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
civpro_135: Laches — Equitable Time Bar and Prejudice Requirement (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
---