Definition
An obsolete writ of old English law that commanded a sheriff or steward of a county court or hundred court to receive and admit an attorney to appear on behalf of a person who owed suit of court — that is, a person under an obligation to attend and participate in that court. The writ functioned as a mechanism for allowing a party bound by a duty of suit to fulfill that obligation through a representative rather than appearing personally.
Why It Matters in Research
Cipiendo is a terminal-history term: it appears in the historical record as already obsolete by the time standard law dictionaries were cataloguing it. Researchers encountering it will almost always be working in medieval or early modern English legal materials, Year Books, or treatise literature predating the consolidation of English courts. Its significance is contextual rather than doctrinal — it illuminates how personal obligations of suit were managed in the county and hundred court system before those courts lost practical importance.
The writ connects to a cluster of concepts that researchers must understand together: the duty of suit of court, the structure of county and hundred courts as non-royal local jurisdictions, and the early history of attorney practice in England. The admission of attorneys to act in local courts was not automatic; writs like cipiendo existed precisely because the right to appear by proxy required formal authorization. Understanding this helps researchers avoid anachronistically reading modern attorney-appearance rules back into early sources.
The reference in both Black's editions to Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium (cited as Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 156) is the controlling primary source. Anthony Fitzherbert's work, first published in the early sixteenth century, is the standard cataloguing authority for writs of this period. Researchers needing to go beyond the dictionary entry should consult Natura Brevium directly, keeping in mind that early printed editions have variant pagination and that later annotated editions may reframe the writ's context.
Because cipiendo appears in only two source dictionaries and both entries are nearly identical in substance, there is no material corpus variation to navigate. The second edition of Black's introduces minor typographical differences ("obsulete," "adimit," "appeur") that appear to be printing artifacts rather than substantive editorial revisions.
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's editions define cipiendo in substantially identical terms, signaling that the second edition made no independent research contribution on this entry — it reproduced the first with copyediting rather than doctrinal elaboration. Both editions flag the writ as already obsolete at the time of cataloguing, which is itself historically significant: it means the compilers were recording a fossil rather than a living instrument.
Neither edition contextualizes cipiendo within the broader system of writs governing attorney practice, nor do they explain why such a writ was necessary — namely, that appearance by attorney in local courts was a privilege requiring positive authorization, not a default right. Researchers relying solely on Black's will have the writ's mechanical definition but not its institutional logic.
The citation to Fitzherbert is consistent across both editions and should be treated as the authoritative primary reference. No other treatise authority is cited, which limits the dictionary entries as research starting points for anything beyond basic identification of the writ.
Jurisdictional Note
Cipiendo is exclusively an English legal instrument with no American, Scottish, or colonial counterpart. It has no operative relevance in any modern jurisdiction. Research use is confined to English legal history.