Jump to content

Writ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, seeWrit (disambiguation).
A writ of attachment.

Incommon law,awrit(Anglo-Saxongewrit,Latinbreve)[1]is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicialjurisdiction;in modern usage, this body is generally acourt.Warrants,prerogative writs,subpoenas,andcertiorariare common types of writs, but many forms exist and have existed.

In its earliest form, a writ was simply a written order made by the English monarch to a specified person to undertake a specified action; for example, in thefeudal era,a military summons by the king to one of histenants-in-chiefto appear dressed for battle withretinueat a specific place and time.[2]An early usage survives in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia in awrit of election,which is a written order issued on behalf of the monarch (in Canada, by theGovernor Generaland, in Australia, by theGovernor-Generalfor elections for the House of Representatives, or state governors for state elections) to local officials (High sheriffsof every county in the United Kingdom) to hold ageneral election.Writs were used by the medieval English kings to summon people toParliament[3](then consisting primarily of theHouse of Lords) whose advice was considered valuable or who were particularly influential, and who were thereby deemed to have been created "barons by writ".

History

[edit]

Origins

[edit]

The writ was a unique development of theAnglo-Saxon monarchyand consisted of a brief administrative order, authenticated (innovatively) by aseal.[4]Written in thevernacular,they generally made aland grantor conveyed instructions to a local court. In the beginning, writs were the documents issued by the King's Chancellor against a landowner whosevassalcomplained to the King about an injustice, after a first summon by the sheriff to comply had been deemed fruitless.[4]William the Conquerortook over the system unchanged, but was to extend it in two ways: first, writs became mainly framed in Latin, not Anglo-Saxon; second, they covered an increasing range of royal commands and decisions.[5]Writs of instruction continued to develop under his immediate successors, but it was not untilHenry IIthat writs became available for purchase by private individuals seeking justice, thus initiating a vast expansion in their role within the common law.[6]

Writs could take two main forms: 'letters patent', which were open for all to read, and 'letters close' for one or more specified individuals alone.[7]

Development

[edit]

The development of writs as a means of commencing a court action was a form of "off-the-shelf" justice designed to enable the English law courts to rapidly process lawsuits by allocating each complaint form into a standard category that could be dealt with by standard procedures. The complainant applied to the court for the writ most relevant to his complaint to be sent to the wrongdoer, which ordered him under royal authority to attend a royal court to answer for his actions. The development was part of the establishment of aCourt of Common Pleas,for dealing with commonly made complaints by subjects of the crown, for example: "someone has damaged my property". The previous system of justice at the royalcourt of Chancerywas tailor-made to suit each case and was thus highly time-consuming. Thus eventually the obtaining of a writ became necessary, in most cases, to have a case heard in one of the Royal Courts, such as theKing's BenchorCommon Pleas.Some franchise courts, especially in theCounties Palatine,had their own system of writs, which often reflected or anticipated the common law writs. The writ was "served" on (delivered in person to) the wrongdoer and acted as a command that he should appear at a specified time and date before the court specified in the writ, or it might command some other act on the part of the recipient.

Where aplaintiffwished to have a case heard by a local court or by the justice of anEyreif one happened to be visiting the county, there would be no need to obtain a writ. An informal complaint could usually start actions in local courts. However, if a plaintiff wished to avail himself of Royal — and by implication superior — justice in one of the King's courts, then he would need a writ, a command of the King, to enable him to do this. Initially, for common law, recourse to the King's courts was unusual, and something for which a plaintiff would have to pay. For most Royal Courts, the writ would usually have been purchased from the Chancery, although the court of theExchequer,being, in essence, another government department, could issue its own writs.

While originally writs were exceptional, or at least non-routine devices,Maitlandsuggests that by the time ofKing Henry II(1154–1189), the use of writs had become a regular part of the system of royal justice in England.

At first, new writs were drafted to fit each unique situation. However, in practice, the clerks of the Chancery would use wording from previously issued writs, with suitable adjustments, often taken from reference books containing collections of forms of writ, much as in modern times, lawyers frequently use fixed precedents orboilerplate,rather than re-inventing the wording of a new legal document. The problem with this approach was that a plaintiff's rights and available forms of action at his disposal, would be defined, and in most cases limited, by the limited variety of writs available to him. Thus, the power to create new writs was akin to the power to create new rights, a form of extra-parliamentary legislation. Moreover, a writ, if one could be found fitting the plaintiff's case, provided the legal means to remove the dispute from the jurisdiction of the local court, often controlled by a lessernoble,and instead have it heard by the King's judges. The nobility thus saw the creation of new writs as an erosion of their influence.

Over time, opposition to the creation of new writs by the Chancery increased. For example, in 1256, a court was asked to quash a writ as "novel, unheard of, and against reason".[8]Ultimately, in 1258, the King was forced to accept theProvisions of Oxford,which among other things, prohibited the creation of new forms of writ without the sanction of theKing's council.[9]New writs were created after that time only by the express sanction of Parliament and the forms of writ remained essentially static, each writ defining a particularform of action.[9]It was the role and expertise of asolicitorto select on his client's behalf the appropriate writ for the proposed legal action. These were purchased from the court by payment of a fee. The solicitor would then hire abarristerto speak for his client in court.

Rationalisation of writs

[edit]

With the abolition of theForms of Actionin 1832 and 1833, a profusion of writs was no longer needed, and one uniform writ came into use. After 1852, the need to state the name of the form of action was also abolished. In 1875, the form of writ was altered to conform more to thesubpoenaused in the Chancery. A writ was a summons from the Crown to the parties to the action, with on its back the substance of the action set out, together with a 'prayer' requesting a remedy from the court (for example, damages). In 1980, the need for writs to be written in the name of the Crown was ended. From that time, a writ simply required the parties to appear.[10]

Writs applied to claims to be heard in one of the courts, eventually forming part of theHigh Court of Justice.The procedure in acounty court,which was established by statute, was to issue a 'summons'.

In 1999, theWoolf Reformsunified most of the procedures of the Supreme Court and the county courts in civil matters. These reforms brought in theCivil Procedure Rules.Under these, almost all civil actions, other than those connected with insolvency, are now commenced by the completion of a 'Claim Form' as opposed to the obtaining of a 'Writ', 'Originating Application', or 'Summons' (see Rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules).

List

[edit]

The following writs, amongst others, existed in England:[11]

  • Advocatione decimarumwas a writ which lay for claiming the fourth part or more oftitheswhich belong to the church: Reg of Writs, fol 29b.[12][13][14]The writ was founded on section 4 of chapter 5 of theStatute of Westminster 1285.[15][16][17]It was obsolete by 1876.[18][19]
  • Arrestandis bonis ne dissipenturwas a writ which lay for a man whose cattle or goods were taken by another, who was likely, during the controversy, to make away with them, and would hardly have been able to make satisfaction for them afterwards. Reg of Writs 126. Cowel.[20][21]The writ lay to seize the cattle and goods in the hands of a party, and to hold them during the pendency of a suit, to prevent their being made away with. Reg Orig 126b.[22]In 1816, Williams said the writ lay anciently.[23]Also calledbonis arrestandis.[24][25][26]
  • Arrestando ipsum qui pecuniam recepitwas a writ which anciently lay for the apprehension of him who had takenprest moneyfor the king's wars, and afterwards hid himself, when he should have been ready to go. Reg Orig 24. Cowel.[27][28][29]
  • Arresto facto super bonis mercatorum alienigenorumwas a writ that lay for a denizen against the goods of aliens found in the kingdom, as a recompense for goods taken from him in a foreign country after a refusal to restore them. Reg Orig 129; Cowel.[30][31]The writ was equivalent toclarigatio.[32][33]
  • Attornato faciendo,[34]orde attornato faciendo[35]oratturnato faciendo[36]orattornato recipiendo[37]ordedimus potestatem de attornato faciendo[38]orAttornato faciendo vel recipiendo,was a writ, commanding a sheriff or steward of a county court, orhundred courtto receive an attorney for the person taking out the writ, and to admit his appearance by him. Cowel.[39][40]Sweet said it was the writdedimus potestatem.[41]In 1760, Wynne said that the writde attornato faciendowas obsolete.[42][43]
  • Auxilium ad filium militem faciendum et filiam maritandam,[44]orAuxilium ad filium primogenitum militem faciendum, vel ad filiam primogenitam maritandam,[45]was a writ directed to the sheriff of every county where the king or other lord had tenants, to levy of them reasonableaidtowards theknightingof his son and the marriage of his eldest daughter. Cowel. No man was entitled to have this writ before his son had attained the age of fifteen years, or his daughter the age of seven years. FNB 82 A; Reg Orig 87; Glanvil, l 9, c 8;[44][46][47]Statute of Westminster 1275c 36.[48]This writ was abolished by theTenures Abolition Act 1660(12 Cha. 2.c. 24).[49][50]
  • Ayel,orayleorde avo[51]oraile[52]oraiel,[53]was a writ which lay for an heir to recover the possession of lands of which a grandfather or grandmother wasseizedinfee simpleon the day of his or her death; and a stranger entered on that day and abated or dispossessed the heir of the inheritance. FNB 221D; 3 Bl Com 186. It was apossessory ancestral writ.[51][54][55]1 Rosc Real Act 127. It was abolished by section 36 of theReal Property Limitation Act 1833(3 & 4 Will 4 c 27).[51]Ayle was one of a group of writs consisting of ayle, besayle, tresayle, and cosinage.[56]
  • Chartis reddendiswas a writ which lay against him that haschartersoffeoffmentdelivered him to be kept, and refuses to deliver them. Old Nat Brev, fol 66. Reg Orig, fol 159.[57][58][59]It was a writ ofdetinue of charters.[60][61]It had fallen into disuse by 1816[62]and was obsolete by 1843.[63][64]

Writ of election

[edit]
Main article:Writ of election

In someWestminster systems,for example, Canada and some otherparliamentary systems,the phrase 'dropping the writ' refers colloquially to adissolution of parliamentand the beginning of anelection campaignto form a new one. This phrase derives from the fact that to hold an election in such a system, awrit of electionmust be issued on behalf of the monarch ordering theHigh Sheriffsof each county to set in motion the procedure for elections.

United States law

[edit]
1702 Writ of Attachment signed by Chief JusticeJohn Guestof theProvince of Pennsylvaniain the name ofQueen Anne
Return of the Writ shown above, endorsed by theSheriffofPhiladelphia,stating that he is still in possession of the attached property for want of a buyer

Earlylaw of the United Statesadopted the traditional English writ system, in the sense of a rigid set of forms of relief that the lawcourtswere authorized to grant. TheAll Writs Act[65]authorizesUnited States federal courtsto "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." However, theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure,adopted in 1938 to governcivil procedurein theUnited States district courts,provide that there is only one form of action in civil cases, and explicitly abolish certain writs by name. Relief formerly available by a writ is now commonly available by alawsuit(civil action) or amotionin a pending civil action. Nonetheless, a few writs have escaped abolition and remain in current use in the U.S. federal courts:

  • The writ ofhabeas corpus,usually used to test the legality of a prisoner's detention, has expressly been preserved. It is explicitly mentioned in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of theConstitution of the United States.In the United States federal courts, the writ is most often used to review the constitutionality of criminal convictions rendered bystate courts.The writ's application does not stop there: the Supreme Court has held the writ ofhabeas corpusopen to all individuals held by the federal government, includingGuantanamo Bay detainees.SeeBoumediene v. Bush.
  • By statute, theSupreme Court of the United Statesuses the writ ofcertiorarito review cases from the United States courts of appeals or the state courts.
  • In extraordinary circumstances, theUnited States court of appealscan use the common law writ ofprohibitionunder the All Writs Act to control proceedings in the district courts.
  • Some courts have held that in rare circumstances in a federal criminal case, a United States district court may use the common law writ oferrorcoram nobisunder the All Writs Act to set aside a conviction when no other remedy is available.
  • In modern times, the All Writs Act is most commonly used as authority for federal courts to issueinjunctionsto protect their jurisdiction or effectuate their judgments.

The situation in the courts of the variousU.S. statesvaries from state to state but is often similar to that in the federal courts. Some states continue to use writ procedures, such asquo warranto,that have been abolished as a procedural matter in federal courts.

In an attempt to purge Latin from the language of the law,California lawhas for many years used the term 'writ of mandate' in place ofwrit ofmandamusandwrit of reviewin place ofwrit of certiorari.

Prerogative writs

[edit]
Main article:Prerogative writ

The "prerogative" writs are a subset of the class of writs, those that are to be heard ahead of any other cases on a court's docket except other such writs. The most common of the other such prerogative writs arehabeas corpus,quo warranto,prohibito,mandamus,procedendo,andcertiorari.

The due process for 'petitions for' such writs is not simply civil or criminal because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority so that the official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something, failing which the court has no discretion but to decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. In this, they differ from a motion in a civil process in which the burden of proof is on the movant and in which there can be a question ofstanding.

Other writs

[edit]
  • Awrit of attachmentpermits the seizure of private property.
  • Awrit of audita querelainhibits the unconscionable use of a lawful judgment because of matters arising after the judgment.
  • Awrit of capiasdirects an officer to take the person named in the writ or order into custody.[66]
  • Awrit of coram nobiscorrects a previous error "of the most fundamental character" to "achieve justice" where "no other remedy" is available, e.g., when a judgment was rendered without full knowledge of the facts.
  • Awrit of elegitorders the seizure of a portion of a debtor's lands and all his goods (except work animals) towards satisfying a creditor until the debt is paid off.
  • Awrit of erroris issued by anappellate courtand directs a lower court of record to submit its record of the case laid for appeal.[67]
  • Awrit of exigent(orexigend) commands a sheriff to summon a defendant indicted for a felony who had failed to appear in court to deliver himself upon pain of outlawry or forfeiture of his goods.
  • Awrit of fieri facias(colloquially "fi fa" ) commands a sheriff to take and auction off enough property from a losing party to pay the debt (plus interest and costs) owed by a judgment debtor.
  • Awrit of mittimusorders either (1) a court to send its record to another or (2) a jailor to receive the accused in their custody at any point during the investigative or trial process.
  • Awrit of ne exeatrestrains a defendant from fleeing the country or jurisdiction.
  • Awrit of praemunireinstructs a sheriff to order someone to appear in court to answer for several different crimes.
  • Awrit of scire faciasrevives a dormant judgment.
  • Awrit of supersedeascontains a command to stay the proceedings at law.[68]
  • Awrit of venire faciassummons jurors to appear in court.[69]

Indian law

[edit]

Under the Indian legal system, jurisdiction to issue 'prerogative writs' is given to theSupreme Court of Indiaand the High Courts of Judicature of allIndian states.Parts of the law relating to writs are outlined in theConstitution of India.The Supreme Court, the highest in the country, may issue writs under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement offundamental rightsand under Article 139 for enforcement of rights other than fundamental rights, while High Courts, the superior courts of the States, may issue writs under Articles 226. The Constitution broadly provides for five kinds of "prerogative" writs:habeas corpus,certiorari,mandamus,quo warrantoand prohibition:

  • Thewrit of prohibition(forbid) is issued by a higher court to a lower court, prohibiting it from taking up a case because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the lower court. Thus, the higher court transfers the case to itself.
  • Thewrit of habeas corpus(to have the body of) is issued to a detaining authority, ordering the detainer to produce the detained person in the issuing court, along with the cause of their detention. If the detention is illegal, the court issues an order to free the person.
  • Thewrit of certiorari(be informed) is issued to a lower court directing that the record of a case be sent up for review, together with all supporting files, evidence, and documents, usually to overrule the judgment of the lower court. It is one of the mechanisms by which thefundamental rightsof the citizens are upheld.
  • Thewrit of mandamus(command) is issued to a subordinate court, an officer of the government, or a corporation or other institution commanding the performance of certain acts or duties. But it cannot be issued against a Public Authority for enforcing a Private Contractual Obligationread more
  • Thewrit of quo warranto(by what authority; under what warrant) is issued against a person who claims or usurps a public office. Through this writ, the court inquires 'by what authority' the person supports their claim.

See also

[edit]
Look upwritin Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^S. H. Steinberg ed.,A New Dictionary of British History(London 1963) p. 402
  2. ^Francis Palgrave,Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons(2 volumes, 1827 and 1834)
  3. ^R. Wickson,The Community of the Realm in 13th Century England(London 1970) p.66
  4. ^abG. O. Sayles,The Medieval Foundations of England(London 1966) p. 174
  5. ^D. Douglas,William the Conqueror(London 1966) p. 293
  6. ^G. O. Sayles,The Medieval Foundations of England(London 1966) pp. 305, 332–33
  7. ^R. Wickson,the Community of the Realm in 13th C England(London 1970) p. 24
  8. ^Abbot of Lilleshall v Harcourt (1256) 96 SS xxix 44
  9. ^abBaker, John(2019).An Introduction to English Legal History(5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 63.ISBN9780198812609.RetrievedAugust 26,2023.
  10. ^Rules of the Supreme Court (Writ and Appearance) 1979 (Statutory Instrument 1979, No. 1716)[1],discussed in House of Lords in 1980,[2]
  11. ^For a list of writs, see, for example, "Antiquities of the Law" (1870) 1 Albany Law Journal247.
  12. ^John Rastell and William Rastell. Les Termes de la Ley. In the Savoy. 1721.p 27
  13. ^Black's Law Dictionary,2nd Ed, 1910,p 44.
  14. ^Ephraim Chambers."Advocatione".Cyclopaedia.Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  15. ^Finlason. Reeves' History of the English Law. New American Edition. 1880.p 501.
  16. ^Ruffhead."Advowson"in "The Table". The Statutes at Large. 1765. Volume 9.
  17. ^Encyclopædia Britannica. 9th Ed. 1888. vol 23.p 412.
  18. ^Mozley and Whiteley. A Concise Law Dictionary. Butterworths. London. 1876.p 15.
  19. ^See further FNB30and 2 Co Inst489and 646.
  20. ^Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850.p 29.
  21. ^Ephraim Chambers."Arrestandis".Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  22. ^Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1.p 277.
  23. ^Thomas Walter Williams."ARR".A Compendious and Comprehensive Law Dictionary. 1816.
  24. ^Mozely and Whitely, A Concise Law Dictionary, 1876,p 48
  25. ^See further 2 Co Inst328;"The Merry Wives of Windsor" (1984)59Shakespearean Criticism 150; Dolan (ed), "Renaissance Drama and the Law" (1996)25Renaissance Drama 158; Ross,Elizabethan Literature and the Law of Fraudulent Conveyance,2003, p 26.
  26. ^As to the meaning of "cattle" generally, see for example Stroud, The Judicial Dictionary, 1890,p 113;and Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes, 2nd Ed, 1848, p 248.
  27. ^Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850.p 29.
  28. ^Ephraim Chambers."Arrestando".Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  29. ^See further 2 Co Inst53;Reg Orig24;Tyler v Pomeroy (1864) 8 Allen's Massachusetts Reports 480 at487.
  30. ^Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850.p 29.
  31. ^Ephraim Chambers."Arresto".Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  32. ^Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1.p 191.
  33. ^See further Reg Orig129;2 Co Inst205;FNB114;4 Co Inst124;De Lovio v Boit (1815) 2 Gallison 398 at408,23 Myer's Federal Decisions 20 at26;Molloy,De jure maritimo et navali,p 29;17 Viner's Abridgment4.
  34. ^An Abridgment of Sir Edward Coke's Reports. New York. 1813.p 233
  35. ^Maugham. A Treatise on the Law of Attornies, Solicitors and Agents. 1825.p 6.
  36. ^The New Encyclopaedia. 1807. vol 3.p 78.
  37. ^Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1.p 277.
  38. ^Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1.p 619.
  39. ^Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850.p 36
  40. ^Ephraim Chambers."Atturnato".Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  41. ^Sweet. A Dictionary of English Law. 1882.p 153.
  42. ^Edward Wynne. "Observations on Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium". 1760. printed in "A Miscellany containing Several Law Tracts". 1765.p 24.
  43. ^See further FNB156
  44. ^abHenry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850.p 39.
  45. ^Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1.p 230.
  46. ^Ephraim Chambers."Auxilium".Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  47. ^English. A Dictionary of Words and Phrases Used in Ancient and Modern Law. 1899. Reprinted 2000. vol 1.p 79.
  48. ^Digby. An Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property. 2nd Ed. 1876.p 117.The enactment which is chapter 36 inRuffhead's editionis sometimes cited as chapter 35.
  49. ^Mozely and Whitely. A Concise Law Dictionary. 1876.p 36
  50. ^See further 2 Broom & Had Com144;FNB82and 83; andThe Law-french Dictionary.
  51. ^abcHenry C Adams. A Juridical Glossary. 1886. Weed, Parsons & Company. Albany, New York. Volume 1.p 278.
  52. ^John Rastell and William Rastell.Les Termes de la Ley.In the Savoy. 1721.p 35
  53. ^1 Rosc Real Act127
  54. ^Ephraim Chambers."Ayel".Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  55. ^Also called an ancestral possessory writ: 1 Rosc. Real Act.127;Martin,Civil Procedure at Common Law,1899, p 127. Ayel is anancestral writ:Roberts, A Digest of Select British Statutes, 1817,p 148.Cf.Booth,p 83.
  56. ^Roberts, A Digest of Select British Statutes, 1817,p 148.Buchanan, A Technological Dictionary, 1846,p 133.(1879) 112 Westminster Review356.(1943)Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research217. Booth, The Nature and Practice of Real Actions, 2nd Ed, 1811, Ch 16, pp200to 205.
  57. ^John Rastell and William Rastell. Les Termes de la Ley. In the Savoy. 1721.p 119.
  58. ^Ephraim Chambers."Chartis".Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.
  59. ^Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Revised 6th Ed. 1856.
  60. ^Stewart Rapalje and Robert L Lawrence. A Dictionary of American and English Law. Frederick D Lynn & Co. Jersey City. 1888. vol 1.p 341.
  61. ^"Detinue of charters" (or "detinue for charters" ) was a form ofdetinue.
  62. ^Williams."Chartis reddendis".A Compendious and comprehensive Law Dictionary. 1816.
  63. ^Bouvier. A Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. 1843. vol 1.p 257.
  64. ^See further, Finlason, Reeves' History of the English Law, 1869, vol 2, pp383to 385; and Troubat, The Practice in Civil Actions and Proceedings, 1837, vol 2,p 30.
  65. ^28 U.S.C.§ 1651
  66. ^"Glossary of Terms",Shelby County Criminal Court Clerk,s.v. "capias", retrieved on 30 Jun 2009:[3].
  67. ^"Writ and Petition History System in Texas"page 90InQuarles, Brandon D. and Cordon, Matthew C. (2003)Legal Research for the Texas PractitionerW.S. Hein, Buffalo, New York,ISBN978-0-8377-3626-6
  68. ^"Glossary of Terms",Colorado State Courts,retrieved on 19 June 2009:[4].
  69. ^"Gloss...Terms",Shelby(op. cit.), s.v. "Venire facias".

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Maitland F. W. The Forms of Action at Common Law. Cambridge University Press 1962.
  • Baker, J. H.An Introduction to English Legal History.Butterworths 1990.ISBN0-406-53101-3
  • Milsom, S. F. C.Historical Foundations of the Common Law(second edition). Butterworths 1981.ISBN0-406-62503-4
  • Public DomainThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain:John Rastell and William Rastell. Les Termes de la Ley. 1721.
  • Public DomainThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain:Stewart Rapalje and Robert L Lawrence. A Dictionary of American and English Law. Frederick D Lynn & Co. Jersey City. 1888. vol 1.
  • Public DomainThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain:Henry C Adams. A Juridical Glossary. 1886. Weed, Parsons & Company. Albany, New York. Volume 1.
  • Public DomainThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain:Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. Second Edition. Thomas Blenkarn. London. Charles C Little and James. Boston. 1850.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Writ&oldid=1222891437"