DE AVERIS REPLEGIANDIS

Definition

De averis replegiandis is a Latin phrase meaning "for replevying beasts" or "for the recovery of distrained cattle." It describes a writ — and the action associated with it — by which a person whose livestock or other goods had been taken under distraint could obtain their return pending resolution of the underlying dispute. The writ directed the sheriff to release the seized animals upon the owner furnishing pledges (sureties) guaranteeing both that the owner would pursue the action and that the goods would be returned if the court ultimately found the distraint lawful. The writ functioned as the procedural engine of the early common law action of replevin as applied specifically to distrained animals. It is closely associated with the companion phrase de averis retornandis — "for the return of cattle" — which described the pledges the owner gave as security for returning the beasts if the distraining party prevailed.

Why It Matters in Research

This term will appear almost exclusively in historical English common law sources. Researchers working in medieval or early modern English legal records, Year Books, or treatises on the forms of action will encounter it as a technical writ designation rather than a substantive legal concept. By the time of Blackstone's Commentaries (the 3 Bl. Com. 149 citation Bouvier references), it was already being described in retrospective terms as part of the architecture of the old replevin action rather than as a living writ in common use. The key research trap is confusing the writ de averis replegiandis with the broader action of replevin itself. The writ is the initiating instrument; replevin is the action. Historical sources frequently move between the two without signaling the distinction. Similarly, de averis retornandis describes the pledge obligation that arose once the writ issued — a procedural sequela, not a separate cause of action. American legal sources will rarely if ever use this phrase. Replevin was received into American common law and eventually codified in state statutes, but the Latin writ nomenclature did not survive the transition with any practical significance. A researcher finding this term in an American source is almost certainly reading a historical treatise, a law dictionary, or a judicial opinion tracing the common law roots of replevin. For corpus researchers: connections run directly to replevin, distraint, and the general subject of personal property remedies. Sources treating the forms of action — particularly Reeve's History of English Law (the 2 Reeve, Hist. Eng. Law 177 citation in Bouvier) and Blackstone — are the primary substantive references.

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier's is the principal historical dictionary source here and its treatment is characteristically terse. The entry functions essentially as a translation and citation rather than a developed legal definition, which accurately reflects the term's status even in Bouvier's era: it was already a historical artifact being catalogued rather than a working legal concept. Bouvier links de averis replegiandis to Blackstone (Book III) and de averis retornandis to Reeve — each citation pointing to the appropriate descriptive treatment in those treatises. What historical dictionary sources miss is any substantive discussion of how the writ operated procedurally, what goods it covered beyond livestock (the term averis technically refers to beasts of burden or cattle, but replevin extended to other chattels), or how it related to the competing remedy of replevin by plaint. Researchers needing that level of procedural detail should look past the dictionaries to Blackstone's Chapter 11 of Book III and to Reeve's History directly.

Jurisdictional Note

This term has no meaningful jurisdictional variation in current law. It is an artifact of English common law procedure. Modern replevin and claim-and-delivery actions in American jurisdictions are governed entirely by statute and court rules, with no reference to the Latin writ forms.

Related Terms