Definition
De redisseisina (literally, "of redisseisin") names a medieval English common law writ that provided a remedy to a plaintiff who had already won possession of land, rent, or common through an assize of novel disseisin, been restored to that possession by verdict, and was then disseised a second time by the same wrongdoer. The writ targeted the specific injustice of a disseisor who defied or ignored a prior judicial recovery and seized the same land again. It was a writ of right in the nature of a summary remedy, arising from the fact that the plaintiff's title had already been vindicated once by a court, making the second dispossession a more aggravated wrong than the original.
Common Confusion
De redisseisina is closely related to, but distinct from, the writ de post disseisina. Rapalje & Lawrence describe the two as "similar," but they address slightly different fact patterns. De post disseisina lay where a disseisor who had been attainted (found liable) for the original disseisin went on to disseise the plaintiff again after the verdict — the focus was on the attainder. De redisseisina addressed the repeat dispossession itself, without necessarily requiring attainder as the trigger. Researchers working in early common law records may encounter both writs in proximity; they should not be treated as interchangeable.
Why It Matters in Research
This is a term of pure historical significance. De redisseisina does not survive in any modern jurisdiction as an operative writ; it was part of the system of real actions that the Statute of Real Property (1833) and subsequent common law reforms progressively abolished in England, with American jurisdictions following their own abolition timelines through the nineteenth century.
For corpus researchers, several navigational points matter:
First, the writ appears in the Register of Original Writs (Registrum Omnium Brevium), the standard medieval formulary, and in Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium — the two authorities cited in both editions of Black's. Researchers encountering the term in case records or treatises before the nineteenth century should consult those sources for the formal writ language.
Second, the writ sits within the family of real actions (as opposed to personal or mixed actions), specifically among the possessory assizes. Understanding its position in that taxonomy is necessary to read early common law pleading records accurately. A plaintiff's choice between de redisseisina, de post disseisina, or a fresh assize of novel disseisin carried procedural consequences that shaped the entire record.
Third, the term may appear in American colonial and early republic records in jurisdictions that inherited English common law pleading wholesale. Its presence in such records does not mean the writ was actively developed or litigated — it may simply reflect formulaic adoption of English precedents.
Fourth, the slight discrepancy between Black's 1st and 2nd editions in the Register citation (2066 versus 2060) is a minor transcription variation of no substantive consequence, but researchers citing the writ back to the Register should verify the folio directly.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries are in close agreement. Black's 1st and 2nd editions offer nearly identical definitions, differing only in the Register folio citation. Both emphasize the same structural elements: prior recovery by assize of novel disseisin, restoration by verdict, and subsequent disseisin by the original wrongdoer. Rapalje & Lawrence take a more economical approach, defining the writ only by cross-reference to de post disseisina and citing the same Register folio as Black's 2nd edition.
None of the historical dictionaries provides significant elaboration on procedure, penalty, or how the writ was distinguished from related remedies in practice. Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium remains the most useful historical source for the writ's operational mechanics. The historical dictionaries are adequate for identification purposes but thin on context — a researcher who needs more than a definition will need to go directly to the Register or Fitzherbert.
Jurisdictional Note
De redisseisina was an English common law writ and was never developed as an independent cause of action in American courts. American jurisdictions that initially received the common law real actions system progressively replaced possessory assizes with statutory ejectment actions and, eventually, modern civil procedure. The writ has no operational counterpart in any current American or English jurisdiction.