BEGIN

Definition

In legal usage, "begin" carries its ordinary meaning—to commence or take the first step in a proceeding, action, or process—but acquires legal significance when a statute, rule, or court order turns on the precise moment a matter is deemed to have started. The word appears most often in procedural contexts: to begin a case is to open it before the tribunal; a prosecution is begun when formal proceedings are initiated; a limitations period begins to run from a defined triggering event. Because so much of procedural law is organized around commencement points—filing deadlines, priority disputes, vesting of rights—the exact meaning of "begin" in any given instrument is a question of construction, not mere vocabulary.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To start, to initiate or take the first step into something; to come into existence. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To have or commence an independent or first existence; to take rise; to do the first act or first part of an action; to take the first step. The common and legal meanings are nearly identical in surface definition, but the legal gap is real: in ordinary speech, "begin" is self-evidently clear. In legal instruments and statutes, the question of when something has legally begun—as opposed to merely started in a practical sense—can determine whether a prosecution survives a repeal, whether a limitations period has run, or whether a party has priority over another. The word is legally operative in a way it is not in everyday use.

Common Confusion

"Begin" is sometimes treated as interchangeable with "commence," "institute," "initiate," and "file." Courts and legislatures do not always use these words consistently, and the distinction matters. A prosecution may be "begun" at indictment, at arrest, or at charging, depending on the jurisdiction and the controlling statute. Similarly, a civil action may be "commenced" by filing, by service, or by both, depending on forum rules. Researchers should not assume that "begin," "commence," and "institute" are synonyms in any particular instrument without checking the applicable procedural rule or interpreting authority.

Why It Matters in Research

The practical weight of "begin" in legal sources is almost entirely contextual and statutory. Bouvier highlights its use in Section 28 of the Immigration Act of March 3, 1903, where the word "begun" determined whether a prosecution under a prior act survived amendment—a classic saving-clause problem. This illustrates the central research trap: when reading historical statutes, "begun" or "beginning" in a savings or transitional provision is doing load-bearing legal work, not decorative work. The researcher must identify what act, in the specific procedural framework of the time, constituted the beginning of the matter in question. For corpus researchers, this means: 1. Saving clauses and repeal provisions. Statutes repealing or amending prior law frequently use "begun" to protect pending matters. Whether a matter had legally "begun" before the effective date of the new law is a question of fact and procedure, not just timing. 2. Statutes of limitations. The moment a limitations period "begins to run" is a term of art that varies by cause of action, jurisdiction, and era. Historical sources may treat accrual and commencement as the same event when modern doctrine has separated them. 3. Opening of trial. "Begin a case" in older procedural sources typically refers to the order of proceeding at trial—who opens, what opening means, and when opening arguments or evidence formally commence. This is distinct from the commencement of the action as a whole. 4. Cross-document consistency. Anderson's entry for "begin" redirects to AFFIRM, AT, and RUN—a signal that the word's legal significance in historical sources was understood through its collocations and procedural context, not as a standalone term. Researchers tracing "begin" through historical digests should follow those cross-references.

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier treats "begin" as a term of procedural art, defining it in relation to cases and prosecutions and cross-referencing OPEN and OPENING—confirming that the word's legal weight was understood to lie in procedural sequencing. The Immigration Act example Bouvier supplies is instructive: it shows that late nineteenth and early twentieth century statutory drafters used "begun" as a technical threshold, and courts were expected to determine whether that threshold had been crossed under prior procedural law. Anderson does not provide a substantive entry for "begin" as an independent legal term, instead redirecting to related entries. This is consistent with the word's character: it is not a term of art with its own doctrine, but a common word whose legal consequences depend entirely on what it modifies and in what instrument. Neither dictionary addresses the modern accrual doctrine in limitations law, which has substantially elaborated when a cause of action "begins" to run—a development largely post-dating both sources.

Related Terms