Definition
Ad communem legem (Latin: "at the common law") is the name of an obsolete writ of entry formerly available at common law. The writ was used by a reversioner — the person entitled to an estate after the expiration of a life tenancy — to recover possession of land that had been wrongfully alienated by a life tenant, tenant in dower, or tenant by the curtesy. The action could only be brought after the death of the life tenant who made the improper conveyance. Because those tenants held limited estates, any purported alienation in fee simple, fee tail, or for life exceeded their authority; the reversioner's remedy was this writ, pursued once the wrongful tenant's death restored the right of entry.
The writ belongs to the historical family of real actions — forms of action long abolished in England and never substantially adopted in American practice — and has no functional modern equivalent.
---
Common Confusion
Ad communem legem is sometimes encountered in older texts alongside other writs of entry bearing similarly descriptive Latin names, such as writs in the per, in the per and cui, and ad terminum qui praeteriit. These writs addressed different degrees of remove in the chain of wrongful possession. Ad communem legem specifically addressed the reversioner's situation after a life tenant's unauthorized alienation, distinguishing it from writs that reached further back along the chain of title or addressed different wrongful possessors. Researchers encountering any of these phrases in historical pleading records should not treat them as interchangeable.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term will surface almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century English common law materials, treatises on real actions, and historical pleading records. American courts largely inherited the English forms of action in name but abolished or never implemented real actions in practice; the writ of entry as a genus was swept away in England by the Real Property Limitation Act 1833 and further reforms, and in American jurisdictions by the general abolition of forms of action through Field Code reforms from 1848 onward.
Researchers working in colonial American court records or early republic property disputes may encounter references to this writ in pleadings, but they are more likely to find it cited as precedent for the underlying reversionary principle than as a live procedural vehicle. The substantive doctrine it enforced — that a life tenant cannot alienate beyond the scope of the tenancy, and that the reversioner retains a remedy — survived the writ itself and migrated into modern property law governing the rights of remaindermen and reversioners.
When tracing the history of reversionary rights or the law of future interests, ad communem legem serves as a useful index to how those rights were procedurally enforced before equity and then modern statutory remedies displaced the old real actions. The Fitzherbert citation (F.N.B. 207 G) and the Blackstone citation (3 Bl. Com. 183) noted in Burrill are the primary historical anchors; researchers should go directly to those sources for the writ's original procedural mechanics rather than relying on dictionary summaries alone.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries are in close agreement on the essential content, which reflects that this is a narrow, settled historical term with no live doctrinal dispute surrounding it. All four identify the writ as obsolete, confirm its availability to reversioners following a life tenant's wrongful alienation, and note its origin in the common law of real actions.
Burrill's entry is the most substantive, providing the underlying conditions triggering the writ (alienation by tenant for life, in dower, or by the curtesy, in fee, tail, or for life), and supplying the primary source citations to Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium and Blackstone's Commentaries alongside Roscoe on Real Actions. This makes Burrill the most useful starting point for a researcher needing to follow the writ into original sources.
Bouvier's entry adds the abbreviations "Abbott; M. & W." as secondary authority, referencing Abbott's treatise on forms of action and Meeson and Welsby's Exchequer reports — citations that may help researchers locate nineteenth-century discussions of the writ's historical function.
Black's (both editions) provides the bare definition without source citations, adequate for identification but not for research depth. The second edition entry reproduced in the source material appears to contain a transcription anomaly, with unrelated maxim text appearing under this heading; researchers should not treat that material as part of the ad communem legem entry.
None of the historical dictionaries address what became of the underlying reversionary doctrine after the writ's abolition — a gap researchers should note. The substantive right the writ protected did not disappear; it found expression through other procedural vehicles and eventually through modern future interests doctrine.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ was an English common law form of action and was never independently codified in American jurisdictions. Some early American states nominally recognized the common law forms of action, but the writ of entry family was rarely if ever actually employed. The term appears in American legal materials primarily as historical reference, not as a live procedural tool in any jurisdiction.
---