Definition
Latin: "It is considered by the court." A formal phrase that traditionally introduced the entry of a judgment in the official record. When a court rendered judgment, the clerk would record the decision using this formula as the opening words, signaling that the determination had been deliberated upon and issued by the court as a body. The phrase functioned as a verbal marker distinguishing the final judgment from the preceding pleadings, motions, and procedural record — it was the formal hinge between litigation and resolution.
The phrase is also commonly rendered as *consideratum est per curiam*, with "per" (by) rather than "fer," the latter being either an archaic or scribal variant appearing in some older authorities.
---
Common Confusion
Black's 2nd Edition renders the phrase with "fer" rather than the more standard "per." This is almost certainly a typographical or transcription error — "per curiam" (by the court) is the universally recognized formulation, and "fer curiam" has no independent Latin meaning. Researchers encountering "fer" in source material should treat it as an artifact of reproduction rather than a distinct variant with separate legal significance.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is primarily a paleographic and archival research flag, not a substantive legal concept. Researchers working in early American court records, English common law rolls, or colonial-era legal documents will encounter this phrase — or its abbreviation — as the opening of a judgment entry. Recognizing it immediately identifies the point in a manuscript or printed record where the actual judgment begins, which is critical when navigating dense rolls or bound volumes where pleadings, continuances, and judgments run together without clear visual breaks.
Several practical traps exist for historical researchers:
First, abbreviation. In manuscript court records, the phrase was frequently abbreviated to *cons. est.* or compressed further into shorthand. Failure to recognize these contractions can cause a researcher to misread or skip the judgment entry entirely.
Second, the "fer/per" variation. As noted above, corrupted transcriptions exist in printed sources. When a secondary source quotes "consideratum est fer curiam," it does not signal a distinct doctrine or procedural variant — it signals a copying error. Always verify against the primary record when precision matters.
Third, this phrase marks the *entry* of judgment, not necessarily its *substance*. The legal effect of the judgment depends on what follows the formula. The formula itself is ceremonial; it carries no independent legal weight.
Fourth, the phrase virtually disappears from American practice after the mid-nineteenth century as jurisdictions modernized their court records and plain-English judgment forms replaced Latin formulary. Researchers working in post-1850 materials will rarely encounter it except in historical reproductions or quoted passages from earlier cases.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed., Supplemental) defines the phrase as "(It is considered by the court) The formal and ordinary commencement of a judgment," citing *Baker v. State*, 3 Ark. 491. This entry is brief but accurate as far as it goes. It correctly identifies the phrase's function — as a commencement formula, not a term of art carrying independent legal doctrine.
What Black's does not address is the broader context of Latin judgment formulary of which this phrase was a part. Early common law judgments followed rigid structural templates: the opening formula (*consideratum est per curiam*), the description of the parties and the prior proceedings, and then the substantive disposition. The phrase's appearance was so routine that it conveyed no information about the *type* of judgment entered — it preceded writs of debt, actions in tort, and everything between. Researchers should not read substantive meaning into the formula itself.
No significant divergence exists among historical dictionaries on this term because so few cover it at all. Its appearance in Black's Supplemental volume rather than the main body reflects its status as a procedural relic of limited doctrinal interest even at the time of compilation.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The formula derives from English common law practice and was carried into early American courts. Its use was never uniform across American jurisdictions, and it had largely passed out of active use in most American courts by the latter half of the nineteenth century. It persists primarily in the historical record, not in any modern procedural system.
---