Definition
A historical common law writ of trespass directed against a bailee or carrier who handled a pipe of wine so negligently that the cask was staved in and its contents lost. The writ provided a remedy to the owner of goods damaged or destroyed through the careless handling of a carrier, and it stands as one of the early common law instruments addressing carrier liability for negligent custody of personal property.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This writ is almost exclusively a historical curiosity today, but it carries genuine significance for researchers tracing the common law development of bailment and carrier liability. The writ appears in the Register of Original Writs (Reg. orig. 110) and is referenced by Sir William Jones in his foundational treatise on bailment in connection with the landmark case of Coggs v. Bernard — one of the most important early decisions articulating the duties owed by a bailee to the owner of entrusted goods. Researchers working on the history of negligence, the evolution of bailment doctrine, or the origins of common carrier liability will encounter this writ as background authority in older treatises and commentaries. It illustrates how early common law fashioned specific, narrowly-drawn writs to address particular factual situations long before general negligence doctrine existed as a unified category. Do not expect to find substantive treatment of this writ outside of historical legal sources; it has no modern procedural life. Researchers who encounter allusions to it in historical materials on bailment or trespass on the case should read it in the context of Jones's Bailm. and the discussion surrounding Coggs v. Bernard, where Sir William Jones used it to illustrate the antiquity of carrier liability at common law.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed., Supplemental) provides the only formal dictionary treatment located in the Law Mind corpus. The entry is brief: it identifies the writ as one lying for trespass where a pipe of wine was carried so carelessly that it was staved and the contents lost, citing Reg. orig. 110 and noting the allusion by Sir William Jones in his remarks on Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909, and in Jones, Bailm. 59. No other historical dictionaries in the corpus provide an independent entry. The significance of the writ in the historical record is primarily derivative — it is not treated as a major writ in its own right but is invoked in treatise literature as evidence that English law long recognized a cause of action for negligent handling of entrusted goods. Historical sources are silent on whether the writ enjoyed significant practical use in the courts; its appearance in the Register of Original Writs confirms its formal existence, but its primary legacy is doctrinal rather than procedural.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ belongs entirely to the historical common law of England and has no procedural counterpart in any modern jurisdiction. Its relevance today is limited to comparative legal history and the doctrinal ancestry of bailment and carrier liability rules adopted in common law jurisdictions derived from English law.
---