Definition
Latin: "They have wasted." A historical term in English law referring to waste or misapplication of estate assets by executors or administrators, and to the legal process issued against them for such conduct. The term appears both as a description of the wrongful act itself and as a name for the writ or proceeding initiated in response to that act.
Devastaverunt is the plural Latin perfect indicative form, indicating that multiple parties (executors or administrators acting jointly) have committed the waste. It functions as a variant label within the same doctrinal family as devastavit, which covers the same misconduct by a single representative. In practice, historical courts and commentators used the two forms interchangeably, with the plural form appearing when co-executors or co-administrators were jointly charged.
---
Common Confusion
DEVASTAVERUNT and DEVASTAVIT are frequently treated as synonyms in historical sources, and for most research purposes they are interchangeable in substance. The distinction, where it exists at all, is grammatical and numerical: devastavit (singular, "he/she has wasted") names the wrong committed by a sole executor or administrator; devastaverunt (plural, "they have wasted") names the same wrong committed by co-representatives. Researchers should not infer a substantive legal difference from the choice of form in a given source. Both terms point to the same underlying liability and the same remedial process.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering devastaverunt in historical materials should treat it as an entry point into the broader devastavit doctrine rather than a freestanding concept. The term appears most commonly in older English equity and probate records, and in treatises from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, where it surfaces in discussions of executor liability, surety bonds, and the reach of creditors against estate assets.
Several research traps are worth noting. First, because Black's both editions simply cross-reference devastavit, a researcher who stops at devastaverunt will miss the substantive doctrine entirely; the full treatment is always under devastavit. Second, the term is virtually absent from American legal materials after the mid-nineteenth century, as American probate practice consolidated its vocabulary around devastavit and general executor liability principles, dropping the Latinate plural form. Finding devastaverunt in an American source almost always signals that the writer is drawing from English equity authorities or copying from an English form book. Third, in older printed reports and abridgements, the distinction between the singular and plural forms is occasionally blurred by transcription errors or typographical inconsistency, so the form alone should not be used to draw inferences about whether one or multiple fiduciaries were involved in the underlying litigation.
For corpus searches, researchers should run both forms (devastavit and devastaverunt) as separate queries, since indexing practices in historical collections are inconsistent. The plural form is substantially rarer and will return a much smaller result set.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary are in full agreement: devastaverunt means "they have wasted," applies to waste by executors and administrators in old English law, and encompasses both the wrongful act and the process issuing against the responsible parties. Both editions cite Cowell's legal dictionary as the authority and direct the reader to devastavit for the substantive treatment.
The consistency across editions reflects the term's settled, if narrow, place in the legal lexicon. Neither edition elaborates on the procedural mechanics of the process, the remedies available, or the relationship between devastaverunt and the surety or personal liability of the representative — all of which are developed under devastavit in fuller treatments. The historical dictionaries accurately convey that this is a term of art tied to a specific procedural and doctrinal context, but they offer no analysis of its operation. Researchers should not mistake the brevity of these entries for an absence of underlying doctrine; the doctrine is substantial, only located elsewhere.
Cowell's Interpreter, the source cited in both Black's editions, is a seventeenth-century English legal glossary that preserves many Latinized terms of practice that had already become archaic by the time Black's was compiled. Its citation here signals that devastaverunt was already retreating from active use by the late nineteenth century.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Devastavit; Executors and Administrators; Fiduciary Liability.
---