Definition
An adjourned term is a continuation of a previously convened regular court term, extended by adjournment rather than concluded. It is not a new or separate term but a prolongation of the original term. Because the adjourned term is legally the same term as the one from which it continues, the court retains full jurisdiction over all business transacted, orders entered, and entries made during the regular term. Matters left unresolved at the regular term carry forward without interruption, and the court's power over them remains intact.
Common Confusion
An adjourned term is frequently confused with an additional term. The distinction is substantive. An additional term is a wholly separate term of court, convened independently, with its own jurisdictional footing. An adjourned term is the same term continued — the original term has not ended, only been paused and resumed. This distinction matters for questions of jurisdiction, the validity of orders, and whether time-sensitive procedural deadlines restart or continue to run. A court acting at an additional term may lack authority over matters from a prior term; a court acting at an adjourned term does not face that limitation.
Why It Matters in Research
The adjourned term concept is largely a creature of older practice and appears most prominently in 19th- and early 20th-century procedural law. Researchers working in historical court records, appeals from that era, or jurisdictions that retained term-based court systems will encounter this term in opinions, statutes, and procedural rules where the nature of the term — adjourned versus additional — determined whether a court had authority to act.
The key research trap is assuming that any continuation of court business after a scheduled term date constitutes an adjourned term. Courts and legislatures distinguished carefully between adjournment, recess, and the convening of additional or special terms. Confusing these categories in historical sources can lead to misreading jurisdictional holdings.
Modern continuous-session court systems have largely rendered the adjourned term obsolete as a live procedural concept. Most contemporary jurisdictions operate courts on a continuous rather than term basis, meaning the term/adjourned term distinction no longer structures jurisdictional analysis. When the term appears in modern sources, it is almost always in a historical, statutory interpretation, or transitional context.
Researchers examining state court practice should be alert to jurisdictional enabling statutes. Bouvier's notes Massachusetts General Statutes as expressly providing for adjourned law terms, and Burrill's and Black's 2nd edition both cite Ohio and Kansas authority. This suggests the concept had active statutory grounding in specific states, and the case law surrounding those statutes is where the substantive doctrine was developed.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are in strong agreement on the core definition. Black's (1st and 2nd editions), Bouvier's, and Burrill's all define the adjourned term as a continuation of a regular term by adjournment, and all treat it as distinguished from an additional term. Burrill's provides the most developed explanation, expressly stating that an adjourned term "is the same term prolonged" and that "the power of the court over the business which has been done, and the entries made at the regular term, continues" — language that directly addresses why the distinction carries legal consequence. Black's 2nd edition incorporates this same doctrinal point and cites Harris v. Gest, 4 Ohio St. 473, and Kingsley v. Bagby, 2 Kan. App. 23, as authority.
No historical dictionary provides a definition that conflicts with the others. The sources differ only in depth of elaboration. What the historical dictionaries do not address — understandably, given their era — is the displacement of term-based court practice by continuous-session systems, which is the most important contextual fact for a modern researcher encountering this term.
Jurisdictional Note
The adjourned term was recognized in specific state statutory schemes, including Massachusetts and Ohio, where it had defined procedural significance. Modern continuous-session jurisdictions do not use term-based court calendars in the same way, and the concept has no operative significance in federal courts or most contemporary state practice. Researchers should consult the procedural statutes of the relevant historical jurisdiction when the term appears in older materials.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry directly addresses court terms or adjourned terms as procedural concepts. The matching entries returned — capital gains, employment contracts, and international trade terms — are not relevant to this entry.