DEDIMUS - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

DEDIMUSAuthored

The Law Mind • 755 words

Definition

A dedimus (from the Latin "dedimus potestatem," meaning "we have given power") is a writ issuing from a court that delegates judicial authority to a private person or commissioner to perform an act that would ordinarily require the presence of a judge. Most commonly, a dedimus authorized a commissioned individual to take the sworn testimony of a witness who could not appear before the court — due to illness, distance, or other incapacity — and return that testimony for use in the proceeding. It could also be issued to administer oaths, take acknowledgments of deeds, or perform other limited judicial functions outside the court's immediate presence.

The writ operates as formal authorization: without it, a private person had no standing to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions on behalf of the court. With it, the designated commissioner acted under the court's authority and the acts performed carried legal effect as if done before the court itself.

Common Confusion

DEDIMUS vs. COMMISSION TO EXAMINE: In practice and in older texts, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Strictly, a dedimus is the writ that authorizes the commission; a commission to examine is the instrument that carries out the authority granted by the dedimus. The distinction matters in historical records because the writ and the commission may appear as separate documents in court files.

DEDIMUS vs. LETTERS ROGATORY: Both instruments reach outside the normal court proceeding to obtain testimony or perform acts at a distance. Letters rogatory are requests made to foreign or other-jurisdiction courts; a dedimus issues within the same jurisdiction and delegates to a private person rather than another court.

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century common law materials will encounter dedimus most often in equity practice and early American court records, where taking testimony out of court was a procedural necessity rather than an exception. In historical archives — colonial, early state, and federal circuit court records — the dedimus appears as a distinct filed document preceding depositions, and researchers should not assume that a deposition in the record was taken under modern notice procedures.

The writ largely disappeared from American practice as formal procedural codes replaced writ-based common law procedure. Federal rules (and their state analogs) absorbed the function of the dedimus into the general framework of discovery and deposition practice, eliminating the need for a separate authorizing writ. Researchers using nineteenth-century practice manuals or treatises on equity procedure — Mitford, Story, or Daniell — will find dedimus discussed as a live procedural tool; researchers using twentieth-century sources will find it historical.

A key trap: the absence of the term "dedimus" in a post-code source does not mean the underlying function disappeared. Tracing the procedural lineage from dedimus through early commission practice to modern Rule 28 (federal) or equivalent state rules is often necessary to understand how a historical deposition was authorized and whether it had legal effect.

Historical Dictionary Support

Webster's 1913 and Wiktionary are in complete agreement, both drawing on Bouvier for the definition: a writ commissioning private persons to perform a judicial act, paradigmatically examining a witness. Anderson's dictionary entry retrieved under this term in the source material contains only the "nemo dat" maxim entry — a retrieval anomaly — and does not supply substantive content on dedimus itself.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary (the source cited by Webster's) treated dedimus as established common law procedure with English Chancery roots. The full phrase dedimus potestatem appears in English records from at least the fourteenth century and was a standard Chancery instrument for taking testimony from distant or infirm witnesses. American equity courts adopted the practice directly.

Historical sources are consistent on the core definition but sparse on the procedural details of how the writ was executed, the qualifications of commissioners, and the standards for admissibility of testimony so taken. Researchers needing that operational detail should consult equity practice treatises rather than the general dictionaries.

Jurisdictional Note

The dedimus was primarily a creature of equity practice and was recognized across common law jurisdictions following English Chancery models. In American states, its availability and form varied with the development of local equity procedure; some states never formally adopted it by that name, achieving the same result through statutory commission processes. By the mid-twentieth century, it had been procedurally superseded in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions.

DEDIMUSmain

Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890

Nemo dat qui non habet. No one gives 13 Pars. Contr. 466, 492; American File Co. v. Garwho does not have. rett, 110 U. S. 295 (1884), cases. 3 Bl. Com. 224. • Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 574 (1863). 3 Bl. Com. 219, 125. • Miller v. Mayor of New York, 109 U. S. 395 (1883). See Broom, Max. 1; 1 Sm. L. C. 244; Sedg. Dam. 29, 111; 20 How. 148; 108 U. S. 331; 109 id. 329; 119 id. 284; 32 F. R. 568; 17 Conn. 302; 83 Ky. 218; 97 N. C. 482; 94 N. Y. 120; 86 Pa. 401; 98 id. 81; 113 id. 126; 16 Op. Att.- Gen. 480; 66 Ga. 69, 308; 71 id. 734; 34 La. An. 312, 496, 506, 857, 974, 996; 74 Me. 171; 133 Mass. 489; 11 Lea, 737; 50 Tex. 517; 25 Vt. 49. 6 Hamilton v. Vicksburg, &c. R. Co., 119 U. S. 285 (1886). See Story, Bailm. 471; 2 Kent, 594. • Thickstun v. Howard, 8 Blackf. 536 (1847). 9 Evans v. State, 44 Miss. 773 (1870). Nemo dat quod non habet. No one can give what he does not own. 1 [Western Transportation Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 133 (1870). The Morning Mail, 17 F. R. 545 (1883). * Hill v. Sturgeon, 35 Mo. 213 (1864); 28 id. 323. Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, &c. Transportation Co., 17 F. R. 478 (1883). 5 Hazard v. New England Marine Ins. Co., 8 Pet. *585 (1834), ΜM'Lean, J. [Tuckerman v. Stephens, &c. Transportation Co., 32 N. J. L. 323 (1867); 33 id. 565. Dibble v. Morgan, 1 Woods, 411 (1873). Baxter v. Leland, 1 Abb. Adm. 352 (1848), cases; 3 Ware, 215; 2 Curtis, 8; 56 Barb. 442; 3 Kent, 300. L. We have given. See DARE. A commission to take testimony, the full name of which is dedimus potestatem, we have given power. In English practice the writ issues out of chancery, and empowers the person named to perform designated judicial acts: as, to administer oaths, take answers in equity suits, examine witnesses. With us the term is seldom, if ever, used in any other sense than that of a commission to take testimony by deposition, q. v. "In any case where it is necessary, in order to prevent a failure or delay of justice, any of the courts of the United States may grant a dedimus potestatem to take depositions according to common usage." 4 "Common usage" here refers to the usage prevailing in the courts of the State in which the Federal court may be sitting. Whether the writ is necessary to prevent a "failure or delay of justice" is for the court to determine upon the facts presented. "In any case" includes criminal as well as civil proceedings.5 The admissibility of the testimony will be reserved till the time of trial. The testimony may be considered by the court in imposing sentence. Letters testamentary. The instrument under which a person named as executor in a will formally takes charge of the estate, and proceeds to carry out the directions in the will. Compare Letters of Administration. See further EXECUTOR.

DEDIMUSn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

A writ to commission private persons to do some act in place of a judge, as to examine a witness, etc. Bouvier.

dedimusnoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

A writ to commission private persons to do some act in place of a judge, such as to examine a witness, etc.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In