Definition
A capias in withernam is a writ commanding the sheriff to seize goods or cattle belonging to a distrainor as a substitute for distrained property that has been eloigned — that is, removed beyond the county or concealed so that it cannot be recovered through ordinary replevin process. The writ functions as a secondary, reciprocal distress: because the original seized property is out of reach, the law authorizes a mirror seizure of the wrongdoer's own property of equivalent value.
The writ arises specifically when a sheriff, attempting to execute a replevin, returns that the goods are elongata — carried away and unrecoverable. At that point, the injured party may obtain a capias in withernam directing the sheriff to take other goods of the distrainor in their place, holding them until the original property is restored or the matter resolved.
The term itself encodes its function: capias means "you shall take" or "cause to be taken," and withernam (from the Anglo-Saxon, signifying a second or reciprocal taking) describes the nature of the seizure — a taking in return for an earlier taking.
---
Common Confusion
Capias in withernam is frequently encountered alongside two related writs that researchers may conflate. A writ of replevin directs the sheriff to recover and return the specific distrained goods themselves; capias in withernam issues only when replevin has failed because the goods have been eloigned. The writ of elongata (or the sheriff's return of elongata) is not itself a writ but the sheriff's return that triggers the capias in withernam — the cause, not the remedy. Researchers consulting historical pleading records must distinguish between the sheriff's return of elongata and the writ that follows from it.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is an archaic writ of English common law that had largely fallen into disuse by the nineteenth century. Researchers are most likely to encounter it in pre-nineteenth-century English legal records, colonial American court documents, and early state court proceedings that inherited English common law pleading forms. It will not appear in modern practice.
Several research traps deserve attention:
First, the writ sits at the intersection of three overlapping procedural areas — distress, replevin, and the sheriff's return — and historical sources often treat it only cursorily within discussions of one of these areas rather than as a standalone subject. Researchers may need to trace it across multiple headings.
Second, the spelling varies across historical sources. Withernam appears as withernam, withernham, and withernamium in Latin pleading forms. The Latin phrase repetitum namium (repeated or second taking) is used synonymously in some sources and may appear in records where withernam does not.
Third, Rapalje & Lawrence's note that the accent falls on the first syllable of withernam is a rare phonological annotation in legal dictionaries and suggests the term had sufficient live usage to warrant pronunciation guidance at the time of compilation — a signal that researchers working in nineteenth-century American sources may still encounter it in reported decisions or treatise discussions of replevin practice.
Fourth, because this writ operates through the sheriff's return of elongata, researchers tracing a case involving capias in withernam will need to locate and understand the prior return before the writ makes procedural sense. The two documents belong together in any archival reconstruction.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The source dictionaries are in substantial agreement on the writ's function and trigger. All four sources identify the core mechanism: goods distrained are eloigned beyond the county, replevin fails, and the writ authorizes seizure of the distrainor's own property as a substitute. Burrill's provides the most precise technical framing, defining withernam as repetitum namium — a second taking — and situating the writ clearly within replevin practice. Bouvier's adds the procedural sequence most explicitly, noting the sheriff's return as the operative trigger. Rapalje & Lawrence is distinctive in providing the Anglo-Saxon linguistic derivation and the note on accent, grounding the term in its historical origins more fully than the others.
Black's entry, as reproduced, is fragmentary on one pass ("cause to be extended" appears to be a misplaced excerpt from a different writ) but the substantive entry correctly identifies the writ's nature as a reprisal mechanism for eloigned goods. Researchers relying on Black's should treat the fuller entries in Burrill's and Bouvier's as the more authoritative historical sources for this particular writ.
None of the historical dictionaries address the writ's American reception or its disappearance from practice in any detail. For that, researchers would need to consult nineteenth-century replevin treatises directly.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Capias in withernam was a writ of English common law and was recognized in early American jurisdictions that adopted English common law pleading forms. Its practical availability varied by state as replevin practice was reformed and codified through the nineteenth century. By the time of code pleading reforms, the writ had no meaningful procedural role and does not appear in modern American civil procedure.
---