Definition
Latin: "that it be quashed." A term of art from common law pleading practice designating the form of judgment entered in favor of a defendant who successfully pleaded in abatement, specifically in proceedings commenced by capias (arrest or summons) rather than by original writ. When a court sustained a plea in abatement in a bill-based proceeding, the judgment was rendered as cassetur billa — "that the bill be quashed" — effectively terminating that form of the action without a decision on the merits. A parallel form, cassetur breve ("that the writ be quashed"), applied when the proceeding was commenced by original writ rather than by capias.
The judgment did not bar the plaintiff from recommencing the action properly; it disposed of the defective proceeding only. This distinguishes cassetur from a judgment on the merits such as a demurrer sustained to the declaration.
Common Confusion
Cassetur is frequently grouped with, or treated as synonymous with, the general concept of "quashing" a writ or pleading. The distinction matters: cassetur names a specific formal judgment resulting from a successful plea in abatement in bill proceedings, not every instance in which a court annuls or voids a document. A motion to quash in modern practice is broader and procedurally distinct. Researchers should also distinguish cassetur billa (judgment against the bill, used in capias-commenced suits) from cassetur breve (judgment against the writ, used in original-writ suits). The two formulas address the same substantive result but track the method by which the action was initiated.
Why It Matters in Research
Cassetur is essentially extinct as operative legal vocabulary in modern American and English practice. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century English common law records, early American state court records modeled on English King's Bench procedure, and treatises on common law pleading. The term is a reliable marker that the source dates from or describes the era of formal common law writ practice.
The key research trap is that cassetur appears in historical records without explanation, and its significance — that the underlying action was terminated on procedural rather than merits grounds — is easy to miss. A case ending in cassetur billa was not decided against the plaintiff on substance; the plaintiff could (and often did) refile. Conflating this outcome with a final judgment on the merits produces errors in tracing litigation histories.
Corpus researchers should note the tight connection between cassetur and the plea in abatement. Any historical source discussing pleas in abatement, the distinction between original writs and capias, or the formal requirements for commencing common law actions may use cassetur as a technical shorthand. The term also connects to the broader procedural framework abolished in England by the Common Law Procedure Acts of the mid-nineteenth century and supplanted in American federal practice by the Field Code reforms and ultimately the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938).
Because cassetur functioned as a judgment formula rather than a substantive doctrine, it appears more often in practice manuals and court records than in reported opinions analyzing its meaning. Archbold's Practice of the Court of King's Bench, cited in both editions of Black's, is the standard historical reference for its procedural context.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are consistent but thin. Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary give the same succinct entry — "that the bill be quashed" — identifying it as the judgment form for a successful plea in abatement in bill proceedings and citing Archbold's King's Bench practice. Anderson's Dictionary of Law adds nothing independent, directing readers only to "quash." Rapalje & Lawrence's entry as captured in the source material appears to contain a transcription artifact and does not yield usable independent content; researchers should treat Black's as the authoritative historical source for this term.
None of the historical dictionaries address cassetur breve separately, though the parallel formula is well-established in common law treatises. The historical sources also do not explain the consequence of a cassetur judgment for subsequent proceedings — a gap that matters for litigation history research and that must be filled by reference to pleading treatises rather than the dictionaries themselves.
Jurisdictional Note
Cassetur in its original sense is specific to English common law writ practice and American courts that followed King's Bench procedure. It has no current operative role in any American jurisdiction. Researchers working in Louisiana or other civil-law-influenced jurisdictions will not encounter it in the local procedural tradition at all.