Definition
Words of limitation are words in a deed, conveyance, or will that define or mark the duration and nature of the estate granted — not words that identify who takes the property, but words that describe what kind of interest the grantee receives. They operate to shape the estate, not to create additional takers.
The classic example: in a conveyance "to A and his heirs," the phrase "and his heirs" is a words of limitation. It tells us that A takes a fee simple absolute — the largest possible estate in land. Critically, it does not give A's heirs any present or future interest. The heirs take nothing by the grant; the phrase simply signals the quality and extent of A's ownership.
Words of limitation are distinguished from words of purchase, which designate the person actually receiving the property interest.
---
Common Confusion
WORDS OF LIMITATION vs. WORDS OF PURCHASE
These two concepts form a paired distinction that is fundamental to estate analysis and among the most persistently misread in historical property documents.
Words of purchase identify who takes the estate — the grantee or taker. Words of limitation define what estate that person takes. In "to A and his heirs," "to A" is the word of purchase; "and his heirs" is the limitation. A takes everything. His heirs take nothing under the instrument.
The confusion matters practically: if a reader misreads "and his heirs" as creating a remainder or gift in the heirs, the entire estate analysis collapses. Courts developed the purchase/limitation distinction precisely to prevent this misreading.
A related confusion arises with words of limitation vs. words of condition. Words of limitation mark the natural boundary of an estate (it ends when the limitation is reached); words of condition subject the estate to defeasance upon the occurrence of a specified event before that boundary. The distinction determines whether a transferor retains a possibility of reverter or a right of entry.
---
Core Elements
Words of limitation function within the technical grammar of estate creation. Three features define them:
1. THEY DESCRIBE THE ESTATE, NOT THE TAKER. The words operate on the nature of the grant — fee simple, fee tail, life estate, determinable fee — rather than conferring rights on any named or implied person.
2. THEY CONTROL DURATION AND INHERITABILITY. Traditional common law required precise language to create particular estates. "And his heirs" was mandatory to convey a fee simple at common law; without it, only a life estate passed by default. Words of limitation supplied this technical trigger.
3. THEY DO NOT VEST RIGHTS IN NAMED PARTIES. This is the key operational rule: persons named within words of limitation (like "heirs") acquire no interest under the instrument. Their inclusion is purely formal and descriptive of the estate's extent.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Words of limitation vary by the type of estate they create:
FEE SIMPLE: "And his heirs" — the grantor conveys the entire fee; no reversion.
FEE TAIL: "And the heirs of his body" — limits succession to lineal descendants; historically created the fee tail, largely abolished in American jurisdictions by statute.
DETERMINABLE FEE (WORDS OF SPECIAL LIMITATION): Language such as "so long as," "while," "during," or "until" — marks the natural boundary of a fee simple determinable, at which point the estate automatically expires and reverts to the grantor by possibility of reverter.
LIFE ESTATE: Absence of words of inheritance at common law defaulted to a life estate; the limitation was implied by what was withheld.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term sits at the technical core of common law estate analysis, and historical sources treat it with precision that modern drafting has largely abandoned — creating traps for researchers working across time periods.
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS: In deeds and wills from the colonial period through the nineteenth century, words of limitation were not merely customary — they were mandatory for certain estates to arise at all. A deed lacking "and his heirs" conveyed only a life estate at common law regardless of intent. Researchers reading historical instruments must apply period-specific rules, not modern defaults.
STATUTORY DISPLACEMENT: Most American states have abolished or relaxed the technical requirements for words of limitation by statute. Many modern statutes presume a fee simple unless the instrument expressly limits the estate, reversing the common law default. A researcher analyzing a modern instrument under common law rules — or vice versa — will reach the wrong conclusion.
FEE TAIL ABOLITION: The fee tail, created by "and the heirs of his body," was almost universally abolished or converted by American statute. Instruments using this language in jurisdictions where fee tail is abolished typically convey a fee simple instead. The limitation language survives in documents but no longer produces its common law effect.
WORDS OF SPECIAL LIMITATION: The distinction between a fee simple determinable (special limitation) and a fee simple subject to condition subsequent (condition) turns on close reading of the limiting language. "So long as" signals a limitation; "but if" or "on condition that" signals a condition. The practical difference — automatic expiration vs. right of entry — matters enormously in title work and future interest analysis.
CORPUS CONNECTIONS: This term is the gateway into the doctrine of future interests. Researchers working on reversions, remainders, possibilities of reverter, and rights of entry will encounter words of limitation as the foundational predicate. It also connects directly to the Rule in Shelley's Case, which affected how courts treated "and the heirs of his body" language in remainder contexts.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary captures the essential rule with admirable economy: in a grant "to A and his heirs," the phrase "and his heirs" marks the duration of the estate and gives the heirs nothing. Black's cites Fearne's classic treatise on remainders as authority — a standard reference in Anglo-American property law. The formulation is accurate, but it reflects the common law baseline without noting how extensively American statutes have modified the technical requirements in practice.
What historical dictionaries underemphasize: the distinction between words of limitation and words of special limitation (the language creating determinable fees), and the relationship between limitation language and the Rule in Shelley's Case, which could transform what appeared to be words of limitation in a remainder context into words of purchase — one of the most counterintuitive doctrines in the common law of property.
---
Jurisdictional Note
American jurisdictions have largely modified common law requirements by statute. Many states now imply a fee simple without requiring "and his heirs," and most have abolished the fee tail. Researchers must identify the applicable jurisdiction and period before applying any rule derived from common law authorities. English common law rules remain the interpretive baseline for pre-statutory instruments even in American courts.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The encyclopedia entries flagged in source matching — on fighting words, tax phase-outs, and admiralty limitation of liability — share only the word "limitation" and are not relevant to this term. No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry was identified as a natural match. Researchers should consult encyclopedia entries on Estates in Land, Fee Simple, Fee Tail, and Future Interests when available.
---