Pratt–Yorke opinion
The Pratt–Yorke opinion, also called the Camden–Yorke opinion, was a 1757 joint legal ruling by Charles Pratt and Charles Yorke about whether the British East India Company could legally buy land from rulers in India.
It was issued after the East India Company asked for guidance because there were disputes over land bought versus land taken by conquest.
The opinion began by saying that lands gained by conquest could be held by the company. If the company acquired land through defensive action without help from the regular army, it alone owned that land.
It then explained a key difference: lands won by conquest versus lands acquired by treaty or negotiation. In conquest, the Crown gets both sovereignty and title. In treaty or negotiation, the Crown keeps sovereignty, but the company can hold the title to the land.
The opinion also said that in India, a land title did not need a Crown land grant to be valid. The company could legally buy land directly from the Mogul, or from Indian princes or governments.
A longer version of the idea appears in George Chalmers’ 1814 compilation, which notes that English common law travels with English settlers to colonies. The common law is in force in colonies unless a specific private act says otherwise. It also says that for lands granted by Indian princes or governments, royal patents aren’t always necessary; the property can vest in the grantees, while the Crown retains sovereignty.
Later, some land speculators in North America spread altered versions of the Pratt–Yorke opinion that dropped references to the East India Company and the Mogul and spoke only of Indian princes or governments. They claimed land could be acquired without a royal patent. One such version appeared in George Washington’s 1783 diary.
Chief Justice John Marshall, in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), cited a misinterpreted version to discuss aboriginal title in the United States. He noted that the misquotation suggested a broader idea than the truth and that the original opinion in Plain Facts was not clearly applicable to American land titles.
Marshall emphasized that the Pratt–Yorke opinion was about how English law works in colonies, not about Native American title in the United States.
This page was last edited on 3 February 2026, at 11:17 (CET).