Definition
A Latin writ phrase meaning "for prosecuting" or "to prosecute." De prosequendo appears in historical English writ practice as a directional term embedded in the titles or operative language of writs commanding or authorizing a party to proceed with prosecution of a claim or action. It functions as a gerundive of purpose, identifying the specific objective — prosecution of a proceeding — for which the writ issues or an act is to be performed.
As a standalone writ designation, de prosequendo signals that the instrument compels or enables continued prosecution of an action that might otherwise stall, lapse, or require formal judicial authorization to advance.
---
Common Confusion
De prosequendo is occasionally grouped loosely with other "de + gerund" Latin writ phrases without meaningful distinction. Researchers should take care to distinguish it from: (1) nolle prosequi, the prosecutor's formal declaration of intent not to proceed, which operates as the functional opposite — withdrawal rather than prosecution; and (2) mandamus, the modern writ that most closely replicates the compulsive function of ordering a party or officer to proceed with a duty. Conflating de prosequendo with either of these distorts both historical analysis and any effort to identify modern equivalents.
---
Why It Matters in Research
De prosequendo is a term researchers will encounter almost exclusively in pre-modern English common law sources — writs registers, abridgments, and treatises such as Fleta and Bracton — rather than in modern procedural codes or case reporters. Its practical significance has been absorbed into modern rules governing mandatory prosecution, prosecutorial discretion, and mandamus-type relief compelling officers to act.
The chief research trap is treating de prosequendo as a discrete, well-catalogued writ with a fixed form, on par with well-known writs like certiorari or replevin. In historical sources it more often appears as a phrase within writ descriptions or as a shorthand for prosecutorial purpose, not always as an independent writ with a settled formula. Researchers searching historical registers should cast wide nets — look for the phrase embedded in longer writ titles and in treatise discussions of prosecutorial duties rather than expecting a standalone entry in every source.
Because Burrill cites Fleta (lib. 2, c. 60, § 33 and lib. 4, c. 5, § 2) as authority, researchers working on this term should consult those specific chapters of Fleta directly for context. Fleta, the late-thirteenth-century English legal treatise, addresses procedural obligations and the mechanics of royal writ practice; those sections provide the primary documentary grounding for this term's historical usage.
Researchers should also note the adjacency of de prosequendo to related writ machinery involving default and non-prosecution. In historical practice, a party who failed to prosecute could suffer dismissal or amercement; writs framed in terms of de prosequendo often existed in tension with — or as the counterpart to — writs addressing abandonment or discontinuance of suit. Understanding this procedural pairing clarifies why the phrase recurs in treatise discussions of prosecutorial duty.
No modern jurisdictional analogue uses this Latin designation. Contemporary procedural concepts such as mandatory prosecution orders, mandamus to compel prosecution, or rules against voluntary dismissal have replaced the function without preserving the terminology.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the most direct treatment available in the Law Mind shelf sources, defining de prosequendo simply as "of, or for prosecuting; to prosecute" and anchoring it to Fleta. Burrill's entry is terse — characteristic of his handling of Latin writ phrases that function more as terms of art embedded in procedural machinery than as concepts requiring extended doctrinal exposition.
Notably, Burrill places de prosequendo immediately before his entry for De Proprietate Probanda, a writ of distinct character (used in replevin proceedings to inquire into ownership of distrained goods). This proximity in Burrill is organizational, not conceptual — researchers should not read any doctrinal connection between the two entries. The juxtaposition simply reflects alphabetical arrangement within the "De" writ series, a large and varied group of Latin writ phrases that can mislead researchers into assuming thematic clustering.
No other shelf source in the Law Mind corpus provides an independent entry for de prosequendo. The term's absence from later legal dictionaries reflects the broader obsolescence of Latin writ nomenclature following the common law procedural reforms of the nineteenth century, particularly the English Common Law Procedure Acts and, in the United States, the adoption of code pleading and eventually the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Standards of Review on Appeal (De Novo, Abuse of Discretion, Plain Error) — useful background on the broader Latin "de" prefix conventions in legal terminology and appellate procedure.
---