Definition
An archaic legal term with distinct meanings depending on whether the source is old English or old French law.
1. In old English law: An appeal; a formal accusation or challenge brought before a court, particularly in criminal proceedings. The term appears in this sense in early English legal texts and statutes, where it referred to a formal charge or impeachment of a person, sometimes by a private accuser rather than the Crown.
2. In old French law: A challenge — specifically, a formal challenge in the context of trial by combat or judicial duel. The challenger and the one challenged occupied defined procedural roles, and the appel was the act initiating that process.
3. As adjective or past participle (Appele, Appelle): Called, appealed, or accused. Used in early Norman-French legal texts to describe a party who had been summoned, appealed, or formally accused.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A surname with no independent legal or general meaning in modern English.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): In fencing and swordsmanship, a tap or stamp of the foot made as a warning or feint before an attack; also called an attack.
The Webster's fencing sense and the legal sense share a structural kinship — both describe a formal initiating move against an adversary — but they are otherwise unrelated in doctrine or usage. The legal term entered English through Norman French and Latin legal vocabulary; the fencing term entered through French swordsmanship tradition. A researcher encountering "appel" in a historical legal text should not be distracted by either modern usage.
---
Common Confusion
APPEL is easily conflated with APPEAL, and Burrill treats them as functionally equivalent in the old English context. However, "appeal" in modern law refers to review of a lower court's decision by a higher tribunal, while the historical "appel" carried a broader meaning that included private criminal accusation and challenge to combat. The two terms share a Latin root (appellum, appellare) but have diverged substantially. A researcher seeing "appel" in a medieval or early modern English source should resist reading modern appellate procedure back into the term.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a research trap for anyone working with pre-modern English legal sources, Norman French statutes, or early criminal procedure texts. Several distinct hazards apply:
First, the term appears in two distinct legal systems — English and French — with different meanings in each. In old English law, it functions as a near-synonym for appeal in its archaic criminal accusation sense. In old French law, per Montesquieu's De l'Esprit des Lois (Book 28, Chapter 27), it specifically describes the challenge mechanism in judicial combat. A source's jurisdiction and date must be identified before the meaning can be fixed.
Second, Burrill cross-references Britton (a 13th-century English law treatise) and the Statute of Westminster I (1275) for different senses of the term. These are the primary anchors for the English usage. Any researcher tracing the term in primary sources should work from those texts rather than relying solely on later dictionary treatment.
Third, the adjectival forms — Appele, Appelle — appear in Norman French statutes and Year Book entries to describe accused parties. These forms can be misread as verbs or as references to modern appellate parties if the reader is not alert to the historical context.
Fourth, this term does not appear in modern legal usage. It will not appear in post-19th-century statutes, cases, or treatises in its legal sense. Its relevance is strictly historical and archival.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the primary source for this entry, and it performs well for the scope it covers. Burrill correctly distinguishes the English and French senses, cites Britton and the Statute of Westminster I for the English criminal-accusation usage, and cites Montesquieu for the French challenge usage. The cross-reference to "Appeal" is useful, directing the reader to the fuller treatment of the related modern term.
What Burrill does not do is trace the procedural mechanics of the appel in any depth — particularly the French judicial combat context, where the roles of challenger and challenged party were elaborated in detail by Montesquieu and in the coutumiers of medieval France. Researchers needing that context will need to go beyond dictionary sources to the primary texts Burrill cites.
No other dictionaries in the Law Mind shelf treat this term independently. It is absent from standard modern legal dictionaries, which confirms its status as purely archaic vocabulary.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The English and French meanings are not interchangeable. English usage (appeal as criminal accusation) was largely displaced by the development of the common law indictment system before the early modern period. French usage (challenge to judicial combat) was abolished in France by royal ordinance during the same era. Neither sense carries forward into the law of any modern jurisdiction.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The modern descendant of this concept — appellate review — is addressed in: Remand — 28 USC 1447 and Appellate Review of Remand Orders (Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia). That entry addresses the contemporary federal appellate framework and is useful context for understanding how far the concept has traveled from its historical roots.
---