Definition
De libertatibus allocandis (Latin: "for allowing liberties") was a common law writ issued to restore to a citizen the liberties, franchises, or privileges to which he was legally entitled but had been wrongfully denied or withheld. The writ existed in various forms adapted to the specific liberty or privilege at issue, functioning as a mechanism of legal compulsion against those — whether private persons or officials — who refused to recognize a right that had been established or confirmed by law, charter, or custom.
In practical terms, the writ operated in the space between the recognition of a legal right and its actual enjoyment. Where a court or authority had determined that a person held a particular liberty — whether a franchise, a customary right, or a privilege attached to a tenure or office — and that liberty was still being withheld, de libertatibus allocandis commanded its allowance.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is an uncommon writ of historical interest primarily encountered in English common law sources from the medieval and early modern periods. Researchers will find it appearing in formulary texts and register collections rather than in reported case law of any depth.
The two principal sources cited across historical dictionaries — Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium and the Registrum Omnium Brevium — are the appropriate places to pursue the writ's procedural contours. Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium is a treatise on writs from the sixteenth century, and the Registrum Omnium Brevium is a register of original writs reflecting the standard forms developed by the English chancery. Neither is readily digitized in full, but researchers with access to early printed law collections or major law library holdings can locate the relevant folios at the citations preserved in Black's (Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 229; Reg. Orig. 262).
The phrase "of various forms" in the dictionary definitions is meaningful: this was not a single, standardized writ but a family of writs adapted to the particular liberty being claimed. Researchers should not expect to find one canonical form and should look for variant forms tailored to specific franchises, privileges, or tenures.
The writ has no modern American counterpart and did not survive the transition to American common law practice. It belongs to the prerogative and franchise-related writ system of English law that was largely supplanted, first in England by procedural reforms and later in the American colonies and states, by more generalized remedies including mandamus. Researchers encountering the term in colonial-era pleading records or in English-language legal treatises from before the nineteenth century should understand it as a technical term of English writ practice, not a living procedural tool.
One research trap: the term's Latin construction can cause confusion with related liberty-related writs. "Libertatibus" appears in several writ names associated with distinct procedures. Confirm the full writ name before relying on any general description.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary first and second editions reproduce the definition in identical language, drawing on the same two citations without elaboration. This verbatim repetition across editions signals that the editors found no additional authority worth incorporating — the writ had ceased to be a living instrument well before Black's compilation in the late nineteenth century and was already of purely historical and antiquarian interest.
Neither edition attempts to explain the procedural mechanics of the writ or distinguish among its variant forms. The definitions function as identification markers rather than operational guides. This is appropriate for a writ this archaic, but it means Black's is a starting point, not a finishing point, for any serious research.
No significant divergence between dictionary sources exists here. The scarcity of authority is itself the notable finding.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ is exclusively a product of English common law and has no recognized American application. It does not appear in any American statutory or procedural framework. Researchers encountering it in American legal contexts will be dealing with historical citations or treatise references to English law, not to any operative American doctrine.
---