Definition
A writ commanding the coroner to distrain the sheriff — that is, to seize the sheriff's goods — as a means of compelling the sheriff to execute a writ of *venditioni exponas* that he has neglected to carry out. The name is Latin for "you shall distrain the sheriff" (*vicecomitem* being the accusative of *vicecomes*, sheriff). It belongs to the family of distringas writs, which generally operated by threatening or effecting distraint of goods to compel compliance with a legal duty. This particular variant is notable because it directed enforcement action not against an ordinary party but against the sheriff himself, a court officer, using the coroner — the officer next in rank and standing outside the sheriff's authority — as the instrument of compulsion.
---
Common Confusion
DISTRINGAS VICECOMITEM is one of several distringas writs that share similar Latin names and overlapping functions, making them easy to conflate in older materials. The base writ, *distringas*, was a general writ of distraint used in many procedural contexts. *Distringas nuper vicecomitem* ("you shall distrain the late sheriff") addressed a former, rather than current, sheriff. Researchers encountering any distringas writ in historical records should identify the full Latin title before drawing conclusions about function or procedural posture, as the suffix determines the target and purpose.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This writ appears almost exclusively in pre-20th century English common law procedural materials. It represents a narrow but revealing mechanism: the enforcement of court process against a recalcitrant court officer. Researchers are most likely to encounter it in the following contexts:
**Procedural treatises and practice manuals.** The primary appearance in the historical record is in works on common law pleading and practice, where it is described as a remedy of last resort when the ordinary chain of execution had broken down. Archbold's *Practice* (cited in Black's) is the canonical reference point for this writ.
**Relationship to venditioni exponas.** The writ only arises downstream of a *venditioni exponas*, itself a writ commanding the sheriff to sell goods previously seized under execution. Researchers tracing an execution chain in historical litigation records should understand this sequence: judgment → *fieri facias* (seize) → *venditioni exponas* (sell) → *distringas vicecomitem* (compel the sheriff if he fails to sell). Finding this writ in the record signals that execution had stalled and the plaintiff had escalated against the officer himself.
**The coroner as enforcement officer.** A recurring feature of English common law was the use of the coroner as a fallback when the sheriff was conflicted, disabled, or delinquent. This writ is a clean example of that structural logic. Researchers unfamiliar with the coroner's historical civil process functions — quite distinct from the modern death-investigation role — may misread the coroner's appearance in these records.
**Absence from American practice.** American common law jurisdictions largely absorbed the distringas family of writs into statutory execution procedures during the 19th century. Researchers working in American materials after roughly 1850 are unlikely to encounter this writ by name. Its appearance in American legal dictionaries (including Black's) reflects the persistence of English procedural vocabulary in American legal education rather than active American use.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary provides the only dictionary entry recovered for this term, and it is characteristically spare: the writ issues against the sheriff when he neglects to execute a *venditioni exponas*, and it is directed to the coroner. The citation to Archbold's *Practice* (p. 584) points to the practical tradition rather than any reported case, consistent with how these ministerial enforcement writs were treated — as matters of procedure rather than substantive law, documented in practice manuals rather than law reports.
No entry appears in Bouvier's or other historical American dictionaries in the retrieved sources, which is itself informative: the writ was English practice material at the outer edge of American reception, retained in comprehensive dictionaries for completeness rather than as live procedure. Historical legal dictionaries as a class tend to underexplain the functional role of the coroner in civil process, which can make entries like Black's feel more opaque than they need to be. The coroner's authority here is not incidental but structural — the entire logic of the writ depends on the coroner having independent enforcement jurisdiction over the sheriff.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ belongs to the English common law tradition and was never widely adopted as a named writ in American state practice. It may appear in early American procedural materials in jurisdictions that closely followed English common law forms, but researchers should treat any American encounter as exceptional and verify against local procedural history.
---