Definition
A writ of chartis reddendis (Latin: "for returning the charters") was an ancient common law writ that lay against a person who had been entrusted with charters of feoffment and refused to return them to the rightful owner. The writ compelled delivery of the documents, providing a remedy when the custodian of title instruments wrongfully withheld them.
The writ was narrow in scope: it applied specifically to charters of feoffment — the written instruments by which freehold land was conveyed under the old common law system of tenure — not to documents generally. Its purpose was to protect the feoffor or grantor's ability to recover the documentary evidence of a land transaction that had been placed in another's hands.
Common Confusion
Chartis reddendis should not be confused with detinue, the more general common law action for recovery of personal property wrongfully detained. Detinue applied broadly to chattels; chartis reddendis was specific to feoffment charters and arose from a relationship of trust or bailment over documents of title. The distinction matters in historical pleading analysis: the choice of writ signals both the nature of the relationship between the parties and the category of document at issue.
Why It Matters in Research
Chartis reddendis is an obsolete writ that will appear almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century English legal sources and in the early editions of American legal dictionaries that drew heavily on English common law compilations. Researchers encountering this term in historical documents should understand two things: first, it signals a dispute over the physical custody of title documents, not a dispute over the underlying land title itself; second, the writ belongs to the register of original writs, which means tracing its history requires consulting the Registrum Omnium Brevium (Register of Original Writs), the standard authority cited by all source dictionaries here.
Because the writ is tied to feoffment — a mode of conveyance that was abolished or superseded by statute in England by the Statute of Frauds (1677) and rendered practically extinct thereafter — chartis reddendis has no meaningful modern successor as a named writ. Modern practitioners seeking recovery of withheld documents would proceed under equitable remedies (such as an action for specific performance or delivery of documents), replevin, or statutory discovery mechanisms. Researchers should not assume continuity between this writ and any modern procedural device.
The term is unlikely to appear in American case law. It survives primarily as a catalog entry in writ registers and as a dictionary cross-reference. Its research value today is historical and definitional: confirming the nature of a dispute described in early English pleading records, Year Books, or chancery proceedings.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (1st and 2nd editions) and Rapalje & Lawrence are in complete agreement — each definition is nearly identical and each cites the same single authority: Reg. Orig. 159, a reference to the Registrum Omnium Brevium, the medieval English compilation of authorized writs. This uniformity reflects the term's status as settled historical record rather than living doctrine; none of the sources add interpretation, limitation, or commentary beyond the basic description.
Notably, no source explains the procedural mechanics of the writ — what court issued it, what defenses were available, or what relief beyond delivery was possible. This is a recurring limitation of historical dictionary treatment of obscure register writs: the definition records existence and function but not operation. Researchers needing the latter must go to the Registrum itself or to Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, which catalogued and commented on many original writs.