"possessory right" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It is typically used to refer to a person's legal right to possess property, or an interest therein. For example, "The owner has a possessory right to the land, even if he does not own it outright."
'The plaintiff has not at any time instituted proceedings or resorted to any process whatever under state or Federal laws to condemn a right of way across said land, or to devest defendant of his title or any possessory right that he might have to said land.
A second, competing view was that the Indians possessed only a possessory right of occupancy, not fee simple to their land.
Fellows was cited by Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974) for the proposition that "the possessory right claimed is a federal right to the lands at issue in this case".
Anglo-American law, however, recognizes multiple possessory rights in land and hence tends to speak not of ownership of the land but of ownership of an interest in land i.e., of an intangible legal abstraction in a tangible thing.
Article 24 of the proclamation states that 'as of the effective date of this proclamation, nomadic people shall have possessory rights over the lands they customarily use for grazing or other purposes related to agriculture'.
The court concluded: [W]e hold that the Oneidas can maintain this action for violation of their possessory rights based on federal common law.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari "to determine whether an Indian tribe may have a live cause of action for a violation of its possessory rights that occurred 175 years ago," ultimately agreeing with the District Court and Second Circuit that the tribe may.
The English common law early recognized the creditor's possessory lien, a right of a creditor to retain possession of a debtor's goods until the satisfaction of the debt, generally the payment of the purchase price.
These loans involve possessory and use rights during the duration of the contract.
The legal status of the body (at least in most Western jurisdictions) is unusual, neither being that of a living 'person' nor that of 'property' in which full possessory and proprietary rights are vested [ 49].
The court cited Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) for the proposition that: "[t]he title of the Indians was possessory, and embraced the right of occupancy only.
