Definition
De retorno habendo is a Latin phrase meaning "for having a return" or "to have a return." It describes three related but distinct procedural elements arising from an action of replevin when the defendant prevails:
1. The judgment entered in favor of a defendant in a replevin action, directing that the goods taken from the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff must be returned to the defendant.
2. The writ of execution issued on that judgment, compelling the actual return of the replevied goods to the defendant.
3. The sureties (bonds) given by the plaintiff at the outset of a replevin action, securing the obligation to return the goods if judgment ultimately goes against the plaintiff.
In practice, the term describes both the outcome (the judgment ordering return) and the procedural mechanism for enforcing it (the writ or execution). The sureties usage reflects the front-end of the same process: when a plaintiff initiates replevin, the court requires bonds precisely to guarantee that a de retorno habendo judgment can be satisfied if the defendant wins.
Why It Matters in Research
This is a term almost entirely confined to historical English and early American common law practice. Researchers encountering it in primary sources — pleadings, court records, form books, or treatises — should understand that it signals a replevin action that has resolved in the defendant's favor, or is in the process of enforcement against the plaintiff's sureties.
The key research trap is conflating the three usages. In some sources, de retorno habendo refers specifically to the judgment; in others, it names the writ of execution; in still others, it identifies the sureties. Context determines which meaning applies. A pleading or writ book will use it in the execution sense; a treatise discussing the initiation of replevin will use it in the sureties sense.
Rapalje & Lawrence note that the writ itself had largely fallen into disuse by the time their dictionary was compiled, the ordinary writ of delivery having become sufficient. Researchers working in post-19th-century American records will rarely encounter the writ form but may still see the judgment form referenced. The term effectively drops out of modern American practice as replevin procedures were absorbed into broader civil rules (see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 64 on seizure of property).
Corpus connections: Documents using this term almost always appear alongside pleadings in replevin actions, bonds and recognizances, writs of avowry, cognizance, or elongata. If you find de retorno habendo in a source, the surrounding documents will illuminate which of the three usages applies.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) and Burrill's Law Dictionary are in near-perfect agreement, drawing on the same authorities — Tidd's Practice (2 Tidd, Pr. 993, 1038) and Blackstone's Commentaries (3 Bl. Comm. 147, 149) — for all three usages. This convergence is itself informative: the term was well-settled in form and had no contested meaning at the time these dictionaries were compiled.
Rapalje & Lawrence diverge slightly in emphasis, describing the writ primarily as a mechanism for compelling return of goods "rightfully taken in distress and replevied," and note its obsolescence in favor of the ordinary writ of delivery. This is the most practically useful note in the historical sources for researchers trying to understand why the term disappears from later records. Rapalje & Lawrence's cross-references to ELONGATA and REPLEVIN are worth following; elongata was the procedural mechanism triggered when a defendant claimed the replevied goods had been removed beyond the jurisdiction and could not be returned, which often preceded or accompanied a de retorno habendo proceeding.
None of the historical dictionaries address the American jurisdictional variation in replevin procedure, which was considerable. Researchers should not assume that the English practice described in Tidd or Blackstone mapped cleanly onto any particular state's courts.
Jurisdictional Note
The term is rooted in English common law procedure and appears most frequently in early American court records in states that closely followed English practice. Modern American courts do not use this terminology; replevin and claim-and-delivery statutes have replaced the writ-based system the term presupposes.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Replevin; Distress and Distraint; Writs of Execution