Definition
A court having jurisdiction to review the decisions of a lower court for legal error. The term operates at three levels of specificity:
1. In English legal history, "court of error" referred most precisely to the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, both of which exercised appellate jurisdiction by receiving writs of error from inferior courts.
2. In American state practice, the term was applied — and in some states remains applied — to the court of last resort within the state, particularly where review was obtained by writ of error rather than by appeal.
3. In its broadest and most general sense, a court of error is any court possessing power to review the decisions of lower tribunals, whether that power is exercised through writ of error, appeal, certiorari, or other process.
The term is now largely archaic in American federal practice, where appellate courts are designated by statute, but it survives in historical sources and in the names of certain state courts.
Common Confusion
COURT OF ERROR vs. COURT OF APPEALS: These terms describe overlapping but not identical concepts. "Court of error" historically implied review obtained through a writ of error — a common law mechanism that confined review to errors appearing on the face of the record. A "court of appeals" could review both law and fact through a broader appellate process. As writ of error practice was abolished or merged into modern appellate procedure (in federal courts, by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in 1968), the functional distinction collapsed, and "court of appeals" became the dominant term. Researchers encountering "court of error" in pre-twentieth-century sources should not assume it maps cleanly onto a modern appellate court.
COURT OF ERROR vs. COURT OF ERRORS: A minor but real distinction. "Court of errors" (plural) was a specific institutional name used in several states — most notably New York and New Jersey — for a distinct appellate tribunal, often composed partly of the state senate or other non-judicial officers. "Court of error" (singular) is the generic functional description. Sources sometimes use both interchangeably, but when the plural form appears as a proper noun, it signals a specific institutional body rather than a generic category.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century American legal materials will encounter this term in at least three distinct contexts, and conflating them produces errors.
First, when reading English sources before 1875 — the year the Judicature Acts reorganized the English court system — "court of error" almost always means either the Exchequer Chamber or the House of Lords. After 1875, the Court of Appeal and later the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom absorbed these functions, and the term disappears from English usage.
Second, in American state records, the term's meaning is jurisdiction-specific. In New York and New Jersey, "Court of Errors" (or "Court of Errors and Appeals") was a named institutional body with a specific composition and jurisdiction that changed over time. Bouvier's and Black's both acknowledge this American application, and researchers consulting New York or New Jersey case law before the mid-nineteenth century must understand that the court hearing the case may have had a hybrid legislative-judicial composition unusual by modern standards.
Third, the procedural distinction between writ of error and appeal matters for understanding the scope of review. A court of error reviewing on writ of error was limited to the record as certified from below — it could not review findings of fact, weigh evidence, or consider matters outside the record. This narrow scope is critical when assessing what a historical appellate court could and could not have decided. Modern standards of appellate review (de novo, abuse of discretion, plain error) are categorically different mechanisms; do not read them back into historical court-of-error practice.
The Bouvier's entry contains an apparent fragment — "is not to be pleaded to such an action; 9 S. & R. 252. See EQUITY." — that appears to be a misplaced passage from a neighboring entry in the original source. Researchers using digitized versions of Bouvier's should be alert to such OCR or transcription artifacts.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries converge on the core definition but differ in scope and emphasis.
Black's (1st ed.) treats the term briefly, directing readers primarily to the Court of Exchequer Chamber entry and the House of Lords. It offers no American application.
Bouvier's (excluding the apparent fragment) adds the American dimension explicitly, noting that the term "is applied in some of the United States to the court of last resort in the state" — a significant practical expansion for American legal research. Bouvier's sourcing includes Mozley & Whitley's Law Dictionary and Stephen's Commentaries, both standard English reference works of the mid-nineteenth century.
Black's (2nd ed.) synthesizes both strands most completely: it preserves the English reference to Exchequer Chamber and House of Lords, incorporates the American state-court application, and then extends the definition to its broadest functional form — "any court having power to review the decisions of lower courts on appeal, error, certiorari, or other process." This expansion reflects American practice by the early twentieth century, when multiple overlapping review mechanisms coexisted. The 2nd ed. is the most useful entry for American research precisely because it captures the term's full range rather than anchoring it solely in English history.
None of the three sources addresses the procedural implications of writ-of-error review or explains how the term functioned differently in jurisdictions that retained legislative courts of last resort. For that context, researchers should consult treatises on appellate procedure rather than these dictionary entries alone.
Jurisdictional Note
New York abolished its Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors in 1847, replacing it with the Court of Appeals. New Jersey's Court of Errors and Appeals survived until the 1947 constitutional revision. In states that used "court of error" simply as a descriptive label for the supreme court, the institutional continuity was unbroken even as the terminology faded. Researchers must identify the specific state and time period before treating any "court of error" reference as equivalent to a modern supreme court.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Standards of Review on Appeal (De Novo, Abuse of Discretion, Plain Error) [criminal_230] — for the modern framework that replaced writ-of-error review.
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Harmless Error and Structural Error [criminal_231] — for the doctrine of harmless error, which developed partly in response to the rigid scope limitations of writ-of-error review.