In the phrase "Possession is nine points of the law":

1. Which law does it refer to?  (i.e., what country and what century)?

2. Exactly what ARE the points of the law?  Between
http://www.answers.com/possession+is+nine+points+of+the+law&r=67 and
http://www.dictionary.net/nine+points+of+the+law I can come up with: a
good lawyer, good witnesses, a good jury, a good judge, good luck, and
weight of authority - but that's only six.

Dear pbevin-ga;

Excellent question! 

Your first question assumes that the phrase actually refers to a set
of known laws, and your second question assumes that the statement is
true where ownership is concerned. I dispute both and I?ll explain
why:

First, the phrase, which typically goes, ?Possession is NINE-TENTHS of
the law? (rather than ??nine POINTS of the law?), is a very old
(probably ancient) saying that, as far as I know, refers to no nine
issues in particular. It merely serves to make a point that one who
has physical control of his property is clearly at an advantage should
his rightful ownership of the property ever be subject to challenge.

The old saying that ?possession is nine tenths of the law? is said to
be a precept from old English Common Law (but other sources claim it
is much older). As you might imagine, the adage relates to a property
owner?s ability to possess, use and dispose of property as he saw fit.
It is relative to one person telling another person who he can and
cannot utilize his property, rather than a disputed ownership.

Secondly, the aphorism that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" is
not a law at all, but a logical rule of force that has been recognized
for ages. In other words, it does not requires a law degree to know
that a person who can prove himself the owner of property to an
assurance of nine-tenths probability is clearly at an advantage over
someone who cannot. The rule here is (or ?was? perhaps, back when the
world was probably a bit more honest than it is today) that in many
cases physical possession alone establishes this measure of rightful
ownership and legal control outside of court (Though we know is this
day and age that the rule doesn?t always hold true, don?t we?  This in
itself proves the adage is not an actual law, but a rule of thumb.)

In civil law consider Law.com?s definition of ?possession?. It has
very little to do with OWNERSHIP at all:

The phrase ?possession is nine-tenths of the law? does not imply that
any person who holds any property is the rightful owner. To the
contrary?what it does imply is that any person who is in possession of
his RIGHTFULLY OWNED PROPERTY is the sole controller of that property
and may do whatsoever he wishes without regard to what any one else
wishes.

?n. 1) any article, object, asset or property which one owns,
occupies, holds or has under control. 2) the act of owning, occupying,
holding or having under control an article, object, asset or property.
"Constructive possession" involves property which is not immediately
held, but which one has the right to hold and the means to get (such
as a key to a storeroom or safe deposit box). "Criminal possession" is
the holding of property which it is illegal to possess such as
controlled narcotics, stolen goods or liquor by a juvenile. The old
adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law" is a rule of force and
not of law, since ownership requires the right to possess as well as
actual or constructive possession.?
LAW.COM
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1555&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

So, as you can see, ?Possession is nine-tenths of the law? is not a
law at all, nor does it in reality point to nine specific issues of
law. It is only a fundamental truism that has been an obvious fact of
common knowledge since the advent of civilized law. Even then,
possession is only ?nine-tenths of the law? if legal ownership is
established; otherwise possession is not ?nine-tenths of the law?. . .
it is theft.

I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you
have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating
and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again
in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher



INFORMATION SOURCES

LAW.COM
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1555&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

JURISDICTIONARY
http://www.jurisdictionary.com/dictionary/dictionary%20p.htm





SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

?Possession is nine-tenths of the law?

?Possession is nine points of the law?

---

Request for Answer Clarification by pbevin-ga on 17 Mar 2005 08:26 PST

> The old saying that ?possession is nine tenths of the law? is said to
>be a precept from old English Common Law (but other sources claim it
>is much older).

Do you have references for these sources?

Pete.

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 17 Mar 2005 08:50 PST

No. As a matter of fact the point at which the term came into use is a
mystery. The term was undoutedly part of Old English Common law but
there are also many sites and sources that suggest the saying is more
ancient but none seem to establish any credible origin. For example:


ANCIENT ROME:

"The ancient Romans held the belief that the land had a kind of spirit
that was nurtured by the possessor and user of it. The possessor or
user of the land was considered to have a greater ?ownership? of the
land than the titled owner. In fact, the familiar saying ?possession
is nine-tenths of the law? had its origins in the concepts of adverse
possession."

"A Case of Give and Take"
http://www.pobonline.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/Article/1,9169,115583,00.html

ANCIENT JEWISH LAW

"Secondly, it is no coincidence that the Mishna portrays both parties
coming into court holding the cloak. As a rule, Jewish law accepts the
principle that "possession is nine tenths of the law." In noting that
both litigants are holding the garment, the text underscores that each
has a tangible claim. If, in fact, only one party held the cloak, the
cloak would be presumed to belong to him unless the second litigant
could produce evidence that the first person had taken it from him."

JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY
"Halakha/Aggadata/Midrash"
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Halakha_&_aggadata_&_midrash.html

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

A well presented case for a conclusion I didn't really like.  The
clarification is the question I was really trying to go for.

Thanks!

I have always understood that this relates to Roman Law but it's ages
since I studied Roman Law so don't ask me to prove it!

The answer is probably correct, but that is not the way I understand
the expression, in the form: Possession is nine tenths of the law.
As tutuzdad-ga points out, possession is not ownership, it's present
physical control of something.  You are in possession of a leased car
but don't own it.  Legal possession  - such as of the car - gives you
certain rights and also obligations.  In the case of illegal
possession, the situation is, of course, different, but the burden of
proof of ownership lies with the owner, which is why companies who
rent equipment put labels on the items that state that they are the
owner.  Sure they have a contract, but if the item doesn't have a
serial number that can be noted in the contract, they have no proof
that the item is theirs.

No, the expression is not a legal one, just one based on practical realities.

But it does express something that does have legal consequences: laws
about receiving stolen goods and those about possession in good faith,
which vary in different countries.  Some places, the owner can
repossess his item from anyone , in others, he cannot get it back from
someone who can demonstrated that he bought in good faith (that the
seller was the legitimate owner).
  
The subject comes up in the media concerning ownership of works of
art, auctions for example, whether the person offering a painting that
was stolen, who bought it in good faith has now legal ownership and
can sell it.

Although internationally this problem is being addressed, even may
have been settled now (?), it still comes down to the owner's having
to demonstrate ownership in the face of the possessor's claim that he
has ownership.

In earlier times when there were no serial numbers and less records
(an inventory of pictures owned by a Jew who was dispossessed (same
word!) and so on), physical possession was likely to win out 9 out of
10 times against someone claiming ownership.

That is what I think the expression means.

>>>"The subject comes up in the media concerning ownership of works of
art, auctions for example, whether the person offering a painting that
was stolen, who bought it in good faith has now legal ownership and
can sell it."


NONSENSE! Name ONE example where this was upheld in a court of law. 

The purchase of stolen goods (or illegitimately obtained goods) in
good faith does not justify or legitimize the transaction. If the sale
was not in good faith the purchase cannot be held to be in good faith.
That's why, in the US we have a little law called "Theft By
Receiving". I've been working to send people to the pen for this for
over 20 years. In my experience this has ALWAYS been the law in modern
times.

tutuzdad-ga

Thanks tutuzdad-ga, I'm glad to hear it, and no, I cannot give you and
example, but I do know that it has been a subject of controversy in
Europe until recently.
Maybe it has been settled now, I hope so.
Myoarin

I must say (from an English perspective) I had always assumed it
related only to land and squatters rights etc....

"Another dimension of English thinking on possession is expressed most
vividly in a popular version of the old legal proverb - "possession is
nine-points of the law"(24) - meaning that possession constitutes
nearly all of the legal claim to ownership.  Pollock and Wright
establish this principle succinctly: "possession is the root of
title," and the right to ownership (unaccompanied by actual
possession) is merely a right to sue the possessor(25)  Where Roman
law distinguished possession from the right to possess, English law
collapsed the two categories.(26)  Thus in English law and,
interestingly, in English law alone, the fact of ownership creates a
virtually
unassailable right to own as well."

=============================================================

Although (rather dissapointingly) also see:

Costello V Police

"The case illustrates the old legal maxim that "possession is nine
points of the law". The rule is that the person in possession of goods
is deemed to be entitled to them unless someone with a better claim to
them comes forward.

The owner of the Ford Fiesta could not be traced because the car's
identification number had been obliterated and a new one welded on,
and its engine number had been ground off.

"Possession is entitled to the same legal protection whether or not it
has been obtained lawfully or by theft or other unlawful means," said
Mr Justice Lightman after a review of previous court decisions."
http://www.car-crime.com/Costello%20v%20police.htm

Regards

THX1138

Hastings Law Library newsletter 2002,

"Nine-Tenths of the Law
A recent question at the Reference desk was about the origin of the
saying, ?possession is 9/10ths of the law.? The first place we turned
to find this was a title called, Quote It Completely: World Reference
Guide to More Than 5,500 Memorable Quotations from Law and Literature
[K58 .Q68 1998, Ref.]. On page 833, under the heading Possession, it
says, ?Possession is very strong; rather more than nine points of the
law? ? Lord Mansfield, 1774.
Sometime during the 19th century, according to page 674 of A
Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage [KF156 .G367 1995, Ref.], ?nine
points? turned into ?nine-tenths.?
In The Home Book of Proverbs, Maxims and Familiar Phrases [PN6405 S8
1948], there are several entries for Possession. A quotation on page
1832 As these two definitions show, I believe that it means if have it
in your possession you have a good claim to it but the legal
authority.
From the year 1750 attributes George Augustus Selwyn as saying: ?Eight
points of the law: 1. A good cause; 2. A good purse; 3. An honest and
skilful [sic] attorney; 4. Good evidence; 5. Able counsel; 6. An
upright judge; 7. An intelligent jury; 8. Good luck."
http://library.uchastings.edu/library/Library%20Information/News%20and%20FAQ/newsletters/oct2002.pdf

The book: Red Herrings and White Elephants, The Origins of The Phrases
We Use Every Day by Albert Jack (in my possession) adds 9. Patience.
 

"Nine points of the law, all but the tenth point; the greater weight of authority."
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Nine+points+of+the+law

"possession is nine points of the law
Actually holding something is better than merely claiming it. For
example, When Karen told John he must return the sofa he'd borrowed,
he said possession is nine points of the law. This term originally
alluded to nine elements that would aid someone's lawsuit, among them
a good lawyer, good witnesses, a good jury, a good judge, and good
luck. In time, however, the term was used more for squatter's rights.
[Late 1500s]"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=possession%20is%20nine%20points%20of%20the%20law


These are some excepts from the transcripts of two Old Bailey trials
in the UK where you can see the phrase in common use by the
witness/prisoners:
 
1780
"I believe her to be a bad woman; says he, she is my wife, I was
married three months ago at Cripplegate Church; I did not like to take
her in, says he, I have taken the room and possession is nine points
of the law, you may enquire my character to-morrow; he paid me
exceedingly well till the 27th of February;"
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_units/1790s/t17930410-82.html

1793
"I felt her hand in my pocket when she lay with me; she had three
shillings, and she gave me the next morning, when I charged her with
it, two sixpences out of it; she said she would not leave me while I
had a bed to lie on.
She said that out of friendship to you? - No; she said possession was
nine points of the law, and she would not go."
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_units/1780s/t17800112-30.html


answerfinder-ga

<quote>
>>>"The subject comes up in the media concerning ownership of works of
art, auctions for example, whether the person offering a painting that
was stolen, who bought it in good faith has now legal ownership and
can sell it."


NONSENSE! Name ONE example where this was upheld in a court of law. 
</quote>

In the UK we used to have 'Powder foot' Fairs (Piedspoudre)
- unless it has been overturned in the last 20 years, I think that
there was at least one market in London that was a 'fence's dream'

Also, my understanding is that under Roman Law, 'ownership' was
defined as 'control'
- which is interesting, but irrelevant, as the UK and USA do not use Roman Law.
- pragmatically a useful maxim ... however

Probonopublico-ga
How about:  "possessio nova decimi legis"?
Can't find it on the web, however.
Naturally, I feel supported by answerfinder-ga 's generous comment,
which gets the expression back to the 1500s and demonstrates how
commonly used it was.
Thanks!

'Adverse Possessory Title" still exists in English Law. 

QUOTE:

Adverse possession
The acquisition of title to property through possession without the
owner's consent for a certain period of time.

Adverse possessory title
If a piece of land is occupied without permission for at least 12
years, the occupier can become the legal owner.

Adverse use
The access and use of property without the consent of the owner. 

END QUOTE

It also exists in Portugal (20 years) ...

These facts indicate a common source ... Where else but Roman Law?

Myoarin-ga's discovery that the phrase "possessio nova decimi legis"
is NOT ON THE WEB is HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT as it points to the
inadvisabilty of relying on web-based sources!!!

Time maybe for Gurgle to tackle 'The Classics'? 

Sorry, I can no longer provide links!

The OED has this under possession, n.:

  d. Prov. possession is nine (formerly eleven) points (also parts) of
the law: see POINT n.1 A. 12.
 
  1650 B. Discolliminium 13 Possession may be 11 points of the Law.
1712 ARBUTHNOT John Bull IV. iii, Possession..would make it much
surer. They say ?it is eleven points of the Law!? 1813 M. EDGEWORTH
Patron. (1833) III. xli. 130 Possession.. being nine parts of the law.

The reference to POINT is:

    12. nine or eleven points, usually in the saying ?Possession is
nine (formerly eleven) points of the law?, i.e. is = nine or eleven
out of a supposed ten or twelve points (= a vast majority of the
points) that may be raised in a legal action. So by hyperbole,
ninety-nine points (out of a hundred).
 
  1697-8 WATTS Reliq. Juv. (1789) 149 Prejudice and education had
eleven points of the law, and it was impossible for arguments to
dispossess them. 1809 MALKIN Gil Blas X. x. {page}20 She had
possession, and that is nine points of the law. 1863 READE Very Hard
Cash xliii, Possession is ninety-nine points of Lunacy law.

See: http://pub122.ezboard.com/fwordoriginsorgfrm12.showMessage?topicID=388.topic

Hey, that's interesting, now eleven points of the law.  That got
forgotten 'cause people ran out of fingers to count them on.

Probonopublico-ga ,  That ain't a quotation, it was just simple enough
for me to translate into Latin, but thanks for thinking it could have
been  :-)
Maybe someone could sneak it into an online Cicero text ....

And thanks for your adverse possession citations.  I feel vindicated
for my "childish sense of law," as a neighbor put it, who wanted to do
more with his lot than the building code allowed.

But pbevin-ga returns to bring support for tutuzdad-ga 
Now we all know a little more.
Cheers!

What an interesting discussion.

The discussion of "Possession is nine tenths of the law" as reflecting
one of a litany of points which may be raised in court does sound like
something which might have derived from one of the formalistic rules
of early court systems, where many legitimate disputes were excluded
from court by seemingly arbitrary rules. I am skeptical of this
origin, as (1) one never hears any similar reference to the other
points, and (2) as used it is always to suggest that possession
creates a strong presumption of ownership - which is more consistent
with its being a proverb than with an obscure system of "points of
law" which coincidentally makes possession point #9. I think the
reference to points is more likely to the decimal system - 0.9,
consistent with the parallel reference to "nine tenths". The saying is
not "Possession is point nine of law" or "Possession defeats nine
points of law".

It seems to me that the OED definitions suggest a measure of quantum,
not a reference to a specific point - possession being nine (or
eleven) of ten (or twelve) points of law. Surely we can't take that to
mean, literally, that the first nine or ten points of law are,
"Possession, Possession, Possession, Possession, Possession...."

As a practical matter, whatever its origins, the saying isn't a rule
of law (common law or otherwise) but (as thx1138 pointed out) is a
proverb. It has some practical applicability in disputes relating to
items of property, particularly where it is difficult to establish
proof of ownership, which is no doubt why it perseveres as a saying.
But if you attempted to rely upon it as your sole legal authority in
court, you likely do more than amuse the judge (before losing your
case). Granted, you could advance it (or the judge might do so) as
reflecting the realities that possession will often create a
presumption of ownership.

The concept that a purchaser, for value and in good faith, can take
clear title to even stolen property can actually be correct. This
often occurs when the person who transfers the goods has what is
called "voidable title" - such as a pawn broker who has taken lawful
possession of goods subject to their being reclaimed by the owner.
Where goods are entrusted to the possession of a merchant who deals in
goods of that type, and those goods are subsequently sold for value to
a third party who is acting in good faith and without notice of the
prior claim, the third party will ordinarily take full title to the
goods. (See, e.g., Section 2-403 of the Uniform Commercial Code.)

Adverse possession is an interesting area of law, but it involves a
lot more than mere possession. Permissive possession, for example,
cannot support a claim of adverse possession. Typically, for adverse
possession to apply, the possession must be actual, open, notorious,
hostile, under cover of title or claim of right, and continuous for
the statutory period. (Each of those elements has a meaning which may
differ from its standard dictionary definition; you can find more
explanation of adverse possession of land and chattels if you run some
Google searches.)

expertlaw-ga, thank you for joining with with your commeent.
It is indeed an interesting discussion.

"Another dimension of English thinking on possession is expressed most
vividly in a popular version of the old legal proverb - "possession is
nine-points of the law"(24) - meaning that possession constitutes
nearly all of the legal claim to ownership."

This was my understanding of the meaning of this adage. The example
that was given to me illustrating this definition goes like this:
1) Bob has a very rare and valuable item, with some uniquely
identifying characteristic that can prove it is his. He is both the
rightful owner, and the possessor of the item.
2) Jack secretly steals the item from Bob, and takes it to his own
home. Jack has now committed theft, but he is not caught. He is now
the possessor, but not the rightful owner.
3) Bob discovers the item at Jack's house. Bob announces that it is
his own rightful property, and takes it back, in full view of Jack and
anyone else present.
Now, according to my understanding of the possession = nine tenths
principle, Bob has now committed theft as well, since Jack was in
possession and did not willingly give it back to Bob. In order to
legally assert his right to ownership, and legally regain possession
of the item, Bob must take Jack to court and prove the item rightfully
belongs to him, most likely by demonstrating his intimate knowledge of
the unique characteristic of the item, and have a judge order the
return of the item. This will, of course, also prove Jack guilty of
theft.