Definition
A Latin verb from old English law and practice meaning "to lead away" or "to carry away." The term appears in historical writs and pleadings in two distinct contexts:
1. Taking of animals. Abducere (past tense: abduxit) described the leading away of live animals, functioning as the operative word in writs where livestock or similar creatures were wrongfully taken and driven off.
2. Taking of persons. Abducere also appeared in writs concerning the forcible removal of persons, most notably in the phrase rapuit et abduxit ("he ravished and carried away") in proceedings under the Statute of Westminster II, and in the writ de haeredibus vi abductis, concerning heirs carried away by force.
Common Confusion
Abducere is regularly contrasted with asportavit, and the distinction was not merely stylistic — it carried pleading significance. Asportavit ("he carried away") was the standard term for the wrongful taking and carrying off of inanimate goods; abducere applied where the thing taken was capable of moving under its own power, principally live animals or persons. Using the wrong term in a writ could affect its validity. Researchers encountering either term in old writs should check which is used and what it signals about the nature of the thing allegedly taken.
Why It Matters in Research
Abducere is a term of art in medieval and early modern English writs, not a term you will encounter in modern pleading or statutory law. Its research value is almost entirely historical and linguistic.
When reading old writs, the verb chosen — abducere versus asportavit versus cepit — tells you something about what was alleged to have been taken and how. The compound phrase cepit et abduxit ("he took and led away") appears in writs concerning animals; rapuit et abduxit appears in personal ravishment proceedings. Recognizing these formulas helps identify the nature of the underlying action and the proper writ form.
The Statute of Westminster II (13 Edw. I, c. 35) is the primary statutory source for abducere in the context of persons, particularly the ravishment or abduction of women and heirs. Coke's commentary in the Second Institute (2 Inst. 440) provides the standard early modern gloss. Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium (F. N. B. 86 A) is the writ-book reference for the animal-taking context. Researchers working with Year Books, early plea rolls, or writs from the thirteenth through seventeenth centuries will find these sources necessary companions.
The partial Burrill entry — cut off mid-phrase at "de haeredibus vi abductis; concerning heirs car[ried away]" — points toward a category of writ protecting feudal heirs from forcible abduction, likely in connection with the wardship and marriage rights of lords. This intersects with the broader legal history of ravishment of ward proceedings and should be cross-referenced with that body of law when researching feudal tenure disputes.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the principal English-language legal dictionary source for abducere and provides the essential information: the Latin, the translation, the grammatical context (verb and past-tense form), the distinction from asportavit, and the primary source citations. The entry does not define abducere as a freestanding crime or cause of action — it is a term appearing within writ formulas, not a legal concept with its own doctrine.
No significant divergence exists among historical legal dictionaries on this term because it is a technical Latin particle rather than a contested legal concept. Its meaning is fixed by its writ contexts. What historical dictionaries collectively do not provide is sustained analysis of how the animal-taking and person-taking uses of the term relate to one another doctrinally, or how the writ forms evolved after Westminster II. For that, the primary sources (Fitzherbert, Coke) remain the necessary references.