Definition
In law, CONCLUSION carries three distinct meanings depending on context. Each is formally recognized and appears throughout legal literature, though the pleading sense predominates in historical sources.
1. Conclusion of a pleading. The formal closing portion of a pleading, following the substantive statement of the party's case. In a declaration or complaint, the conclusion is everything that follows the plaintiff's statement of the cause of action. In a plea, it is the final clause by which the defendant either "puts himself upon the country" — tendering a jury issue on a traversed averment — or offers a verification (vouch to the record). The conclusion of an indictment carries its own prescribed formal language. These closing clauses were not mere boilerplate; under common law pleading practice, a defective conclusion could be fatal to the pleading.
2. Conclusion as estoppel or bar. An older but significant use: a conclusion is an estoppel arising from a party's prior act, admission, or conduct that bars the party from asserting an inconsistent position. Burrill captures this directly — a conclusion is "an estoppel or bar, arising from some previous act or admission of a party." In this sense, to be "concluded" is to be bound, estopped, or precluded. This usage gave rise to the verb form: a party is said to be concluded by a judgment, a deed, or a record.
3. Conclusion as inference or deduction of law. A conclusion is the proposition that follows necessarily from prior reasoning — an inference drawn from established facts or premises. Courts and legal writers use "conclusion of law" (as opposed to "finding of fact") to describe a judge's legal determination derived from the application of legal rules to established facts, as distinct from the jury's factual determinations.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The end, finish, or close of something; an outcome or result of a process; a decision reached after careful thought; in logic, the proposition that follows necessarily from premises.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "The last part of anything; close; termination; end"; "final decision; determination; result"; "any inference or result of reasoning"; the inferred proposition of a syllogism.
Editorial note: The common meaning of conclusion — an ending, a logical inference, or a decision — tracks closely with two of the three legal senses (the pleading close and the logical deduction). The divergence lies in the estoppel sense. When a legal source says a party "is concluded" or uses conclusion to mean a binding preclusion, this has no analog in ordinary usage and is the meaning most likely to be missed by a researcher reading historical pleading or equity materials.
---
Common Confusion
Three confusions are worth flagging.
First, conclusion of fact versus conclusion of law. These are not interchangeable. A conclusion of fact (or finding of fact) is the trier of fact's determination of what happened. A conclusion of law is the court's determination of how the law applies. The distinction matters in appellate practice — conclusions of law are reviewed de novo; findings of fact are reviewed deferentially. Historical sources sometimes use the terms loosely.
Second, the estoppel sense versus the pleading sense. When a 19th-century treatise or case says a party "cannot make this conclusion" or "the party is concluded," it means estoppel, not the end of a document. Researchers reading Burrill or older equity reports must attend to which sense is operative.
Third, conclusion versus prayer or wherefore clause. In modern practice, the closing of a complaint is sometimes called the prayer for relief or the wherefore clause. Historical sources, particularly in common law pleading, called this the conclusion. The terminology shifted as code pleading displaced common law pleading forms across U.S. jurisdictions.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Conclusion to the country. The specific formal conclusion of a plea that tenders a jury trial on a traversed issue. The defendant "puts himself upon the country" — i.e., the jury — for the resolution of the disputed fact.
Conclusion with a verification. The formal conclusion of a plea that asserts affirmative matter, asking the court to confirm rather than a jury to decide.
Conclusion of law. The court's legal determination derived from the application of law to established facts. Sharply distinguished from finding of fact in appellate review.
Conclusion of fact. The factual determination made by the trier of fact. Less frequently called a "conclusion" in modern usage; more often "finding."
Conclusion as estoppel. A binding preclusion arising from prior conduct, record, judgment, or admission. This sense survives in the concept of being "concluded" by a judgment or deed.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus will encounter all three senses of this term, often without clear signals as to which is operative. The estoppel sense is the largest trap: Burrill uses it as the primary definition, but Black's and Rapalje lead with the pleading sense. A researcher reading 18th- or early 19th-century equity materials, or cases discussing the effect of deeds and records, must recognize when conclusion functions as a synonym for estoppel or preclusion.
The pleading sense requires historical awareness. Common law pleading conclusions were technically prescribed — jurisdiction by jurisdiction and action by action. After the Field Code of 1848 and subsequent code pleading reforms, the formal requirements for pleading conclusions loosened substantially. Sources written before code pleading reforms describe a more rigid regime than sources written after. A researcher using pre-1850 English sources to interpret post-reform American pleading rules is on dangerous ground.
The conclusion of law versus finding of fact distinction is live in every appellate case and many procedural motions. Historical sources often conflate these, and even modern courts occasionally misuse the terminology. When researching appellate standards of review, the precise classification of a lower court's determination as a conclusion of law or finding of fact controls the analysis.
Corpus connections: Entries for ESTOPPEL, PLEADING, TRAVERSE, FINDING OF FACT, PRAYER FOR RELIEF, and VERDICT all cross-illuminate this term from different angles. The estoppel-sense entries in Burrill in particular should be read in conjunction with this term's entry there.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries converge on the pleading sense as central but diverge on what else the term covers. Black's (both editions) emphasizes the structural pleading definition — the close of a declaration, the final clause of a plea — and provides the fullest treatment of the formal mechanics, including the "puts himself upon the country" language that signals a conclusion to the country.
Burrill is the outlier in a useful way. His primary definition leads with the estoppel sense — "an estoppel or bar, arising from some previous act or admission" — before noting the pleading close and the inferential sense. This reflects an older usage that Black's largely backgrounded. For research in pre-1800 English authorities, Burrill's sequencing is the better guide.
Rapalje & Lawrence confirms both senses, explicitly noting at entry 1 that conclusion refers to "an irrebuttable presumption or rule of law (see PRESUMPTION); an estoppel" — treating the estoppel sense and the irrebuttable presumption sense as effectively the same concept before moving to the pleading sense at entry 2.
The Bouvier material retrieved for this entry appears to be a mismatched passage (discussing the Concert of Europe) and offers no substantive coverage of this term. Researchers relying on Bouvier for CONCLUSION should check the full entry directly; the retrieved excerpt does not represent Bouvier's definition of this term.
What the historical sources collectively miss or undertreat: the conclusion of law versus finding of fact distinction as a functional appellate standard. This analytical framework, central to modern research, post-dates most of the shelf sources and must be drawn from modern authorities.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The formal requirements for pleading conclusions — including mandatory language for conclusions to the country and conclusions with verification — were historically jurisdiction-specific under common law. American code pleading reforms, beginning in New York in 1848 and spreading across most U.S. states, substantially eliminated the old formal requirements, though some states retained hybrid forms. English practice diverged further after the Judicature Acts of 1873-1875. Researchers using English common law pleading authorities for American cases post-code pleading reform should verify which regime applies.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Pleading (common law pleading forms and conclusions)
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Estoppel (conclusion as preclusion)
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Standards of Appellate Review (conclusion of law vs. finding of fact)
---