Definition
A daysman is an arbitrator, umpire, or mutually chosen judge selected by disputing parties to hear and resolve a controversy outside of formal court proceedings. The term belongs to archaic English legal vocabulary and is functionally synonymous with what modern law calls an arbitrator or, where a third party breaks a deadlock between two appointed arbitrators, an umpire. The daysman's authority derived entirely from the consent of the parties who appointed him — he held no independent judicial power and his role was to stand between the disputants and render a decision they had agreed in advance to accept.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An arbiter, referee, or mediator; also, a laborer who works during the day.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "An umpire or arbiter; a mediator. Neither is there any daysman betwixt us. — Job ix. 33."
The legal and common meanings here are unusually close, which makes the term a minor trap in the other direction: a researcher encountering "daysman" in an old legal document may assume it is purely literary or biblical language and dismiss it as metaphor, when it is in fact a recognized legal term of art with specific procedural implications. The Job citation in Webster's was the word's most famous popular appearance, but it entered English legal vocabulary as a functional designation for a chosen arbitral officer.
Common Confusion
Daysman, arbitrator, umpire, and mediator are related but not identical roles, even within the historical framework where daysman operated. A mediator facilitates agreement without imposing a decision; an arbitrator decides; an umpire typically enters only when arbitrators are deadlocked. The daysman concept encompasses all three functions depending on context and the terms of appointment, which is why historical sources list all three as equivalents rather than selecting one. Modern readers should not map "daysman" rigidly onto any single modern ADR category without examining the specific terms of the historical arrangement being described.
Why It Matters in Research
Daysman is almost entirely a historical term. Researchers will encounter it in English legal sources from the medieval period through the early modern era and occasionally in American legal documents predating the mid-nineteenth century. It will not appear in modern statutes or contemporary case law.
Several research traps are worth flagging:
First, the term appears almost exclusively by reference to Cowell's Interpreter in all major historical dictionaries. Cowell is the ultimate source here; the dictionaries are reproducing him rather than independently documenting usage. A researcher who wants the full historical context should go to Cowell directly rather than treating the dictionary entries as independent confirmation.
Second, Burrill's entry appends an etymology — connecting "day" to "judgment" — and immediately follows with a definition of DAYWERE (land measurable by a day's plowing), an entirely unrelated term. Researchers skimming Burrill should not conflate these two adjacent entries.
Third, Rapalje & Lawrence's entry, as reproduced, runs daysman into surrounding text in a way that reflects typographic fragmentation. The definition itself is clean, but the surrounding material belongs to separate headwords.
Fourth, for any legal document in which a daysman is named, the researcher's next task is to locate the underlying arbitration agreement — the submission — which would specify the scope of the daysman's authority, the subject matter submitted, and the form any award was to take. The daysman's power was entirely derivative of that agreement.
Historical Dictionary Support
All five source dictionaries reproduce substantially the same definition, attributing it to Cowell: "an arbitrator, umpire, or elected judge." There is no meaningful divergence among them on substance. Black's first and second editions, Bouvier, and Rapalje & Lawrence are essentially identical; Burrill adds the etymological note connecting the term to "day" in the sense of judgment, a derivation that is plausible but not universally accepted.
Webster's 1913 corroborates the legal meaning and adds the Job ix. 33 citation, which demonstrates that the word carried the same sense in scriptural and literary English as in legal English — an important point for understanding documents that blend the registers, as many early English legal writings do.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is procedure: how a daysman was appointed, whether his award required formal confirmation, what recourse parties had if he exceeded his submission, or how his role interacted with the equity courts' supervision of arbitration. For those questions, the dictionaries are silent, and the researcher must turn to the older treatises on arbitration and award.
Jurisdictional Note
The term is essentially English in origin and historical usage. American legal adoption was limited and largely confined to the colonial and early republic periods. It does not appear as a term of art in any modern American jurisdiction.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Arbitration (Historical Development); Umpire; Submission to Arbitration.