Definition
Concurrent writs are duplicate originals of the same writ issued simultaneously and running at the same time for the same purpose. Two situations traditionally called for their use: (1) when the location of a single defendant or person to be served was unknown, so multiple writs were dispatched to different jurisdictions or officers to improve the odds of service or arrest; and (2) when multiple defendants were named in a single action, requiring simultaneous service on each. The writs are identical in legal force and effect — each is a valid original, not a copy — and the return of service on any one of them satisfies the purpose for which they were issued.
---
Common Confusion
CONCURRENT WRITS vs. ALIAS WRITS. These terms are sometimes conflated but they are distinct. Alias writs are successive — a second writ issued after a first has failed or expired without accomplishing its purpose. Concurrent writs are simultaneous — multiple originals issued at the outset, running in parallel. The practical difference matters in historical research: an alias writ signals a prior failure of process; concurrent writs signal advance uncertainty about where or against whom service would be accomplished.
CONCURRENT WRITS vs. CONCURRENT SENTENCES. The word "concurrent" appears in both phrases but refers to entirely different legal concepts. Concurrent sentences run simultaneously in time; concurrent writs run simultaneously in geography or against multiple parties. A researcher following concurrent references across an older case record should verify which use is intended. See Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia).
---
Why It Matters in Research
Concurrent writs belong primarily to the procedural vocabulary of early common law pleading and process. Researchers are most likely to encounter the term in pre-twentieth-century civil and criminal records, writs of capias, mesne process documentation, and older procedural treatises. Several research traps apply.
First, the term is essentially obsolete in modern American practice. Federal and state civil rules replaced the old writ system with standardized summons and service-of-process mechanisms, so post-Rules era materials will rarely use this label. Finding the term in a modern filing is a signal either of highly technical habeas or extraordinary writ practice, or of archaism worth scrutinizing.
Second, in historical records, concurrent writs often appear without the label — a researcher may encounter multiple filed originals bearing the same date, same action, same parties, and same court seal without any explicit notation that they are "concurrent." Recognizing the practice explains what might otherwise look like clerical duplication or error.
Third, when researching habeas corpus history — particularly suspension clause questions or the scope of the writ in the founding era — understanding concurrent writ practice illuminates how courts managed jurisdictional uncertainty before modern venue and service rules. See Habeas Corpus — The Great Writ and Suspension Clause (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia).
Fourth, the device had strategic significance in evasion-of-service disputes. Because concurrent writs were issued when a defendant's location was uncertain, return-of-service records attached to these writs can be valuable evidence in reconstructing where a party was (or claimed to be) at a given moment.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines concurrent writs as "duplicate originals, or several writs running at the same time for the same purpose, for service on or arrest of a person, when it is not known where he is to be found; or for service on several persons, as when there are several defendants to an action," citing Mozley & Whitley's Law Dictionary. This definition is brief but accurate and captures both core use cases cleanly.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the procedural mechanism by which concurrent writs were authorized. Issuance typically required leave of court or followed established writ practice under the particular court's rules; they were not simply duplicated at the plaintiff's option. Researchers relying solely on Black's terse entry may underestimate the procedural formality surrounding issuance. Older English procedural manuals and the forms books of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries provide more operational detail than the dictionary sources do.
Historical sources also do not address the downstream question of what happened when concurrent writs produced conflicting returns — for instance, when one officer returned non est inventus (not found) while another secured service. Resolution of such conflicts depended on the procedural rules of the issuing court and the nature of the writ, making jurisdiction-specific procedural history essential.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Concurrent writ practice developed under English common law and was carried into American colonial and early state courts, but its specifics varied by jurisdiction. Some states codified writ practice in early procedural statutes; others relied on common law usage. The practical irrelevance of the term in modern federal practice is uniform, but researchers working in state court historical records should consult that state's pre-code procedural history for local variations in how concurrent writs were authorized and returned.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Coram Nobis and Other Extraordinary Writs — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia
Habeas Corpus — The Great Writ and Suspension Clause — The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia
---