Definition
De vi laica amovenda (Latin: "for removing lay force") was a writ of English ecclesiastical and common law directed to the sheriff, commanding the removal of a lay armed force wrongfully occupying a church. The writ arose in disputes between two parsons claiming the same benefice: when one claimant seized the church with a company of laymen and held out the other claimant by force of arms (vi et armis), the displaced parson could obtain this writ. The sheriff was thereby authorized — and commanded — to clear the lay force from the premises, restoring possession to the dispossessed claimant pending resolution of the underlying title dispute.
The writ did not itself adjudicate which parson held rightful title to the living. It was a possessory remedy only, directed at the unlawful means of exclusion rather than the merits of the ecclesiastical appointment.
---
Common Confusion
De vi laica amovenda is sometimes loosely grouped with the broader category of writs addressing church disputes, but it should be distinguished from the quare impedit and darrein presentment actions. Those writs concerned the right of presentation — who had the power to nominate a parson to a benefice. De vi laica amovenda addressed a narrower and more urgent problem: the use of physical lay force to exclude a claimant already in possession or entitled to possession. It was a remedy against the manner of dispossession, not a forum for litigating the underlying right to the living.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term will appear almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century English legal sources — writs registers, abridgments, and Year Books — and in American treatises that reproduced English common law forms wholesale. Researchers encountering it in historical documents should understand several navigational points.
First, the writ belongs to a cluster of ecclesiastical possessory remedies that became obsolete as the Church of England's jurisdictional overlap with common law courts was rationalized and then largely eliminated. It has no American common law counterpart; the writ never transplanted to the colonies in functional form.
Second, the term's significance in corpus research is primarily taxonomic. It appears in registers of writs — particularly Registrum Omnium Brevium — as an enumerated form, and in Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium as a categorized writ. Researchers working through historical writ registers should recognize it as a neighbor to other possessory ecclesiastical writs and not mistake catalog listings for evidence of regular judicial use.
Third, the phrase vi et armis embedded in the writ's description links this remedy to a broader common law tradition of pleading unlawful force. Researchers tracing the history of forcible dispossession, riot, or the distinction between lay and ecclesiastical jurisdiction will find de vi laica amovenda a useful data point, even if the writ itself was rarely litigated.
Fourth, the distinction between "lay force" (laica vis) and ecclesiastical authority is the conceptual core of the writ. The writ's function was precisely to invoke the civil sheriff — a lay officer — to remove a lay armed occupation from a sacred space, preserving the boundary between civil enforcement and ecclesiastical adjudication.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary agree closely on the writ's definition and function, with only minor variance in wording ("holden" vs. "halden" out; "Reg. Orig. 59" vs. "50" — likely a transcription discrepancy between editions). Both cite the same two foundational sources: the Registrum Omnium Brevium (the register of original writs) and Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium at the same locator (54, D). These citations are consistent with how the writ appears in the historical English legal literature.
Neither edition of Black's elaborates on the writ's procedural posture or its relationship to the underlying title dispute, and neither addresses the question of how contested appointments were ultimately resolved once the lay force was removed. Researchers should not expect the dictionary entries alone to illuminate the writ's place within the broader scheme of ecclesiastical litigation. The entries function as identification labels rather than analytical treatments.
Notably, neither edition signals the writ's obsolescence or its inapplicability outside English ecclesiastical contexts — a gap that could mislead a researcher unfamiliar with the narrow jurisdictional world in which the remedy operated.
---
Jurisdictional Note
De vi laica amovenda was an instrument of English ecclesiastical and common law and has no recognized application in American jurisdictions. Its appearance in American legal sources reflects the reproduction of English writ forms in colonial and early republic treatises, not evidence of American judicial use. Researchers should treat any American reference to this writ as a bibliographic or historical artifact rather than operative law.
---