Definition
An obsolete Latin writ directed to the sheriff when he returned that a prisoner was too ill to be safely transported to court. The writ commanded the sheriff to bring the prisoner anyway, notwithstanding his sickness — the Latin phrase meaning, roughly, "bring with you, although sick." The writ functioned as a habeas corpus in the nature of a duces tecum licet languidus, ordering production of a person whose infirmity had previously excused his appearance. The writ is of purely historical significance; no modern analog operates under this name.
Common Confusion
Dus is closely related to, and was functionally superseded by, the subpoena duces tecum — a writ requiring a person to appear and bring specified documents or evidence. Researchers encountering "dus" in historical sources should not conflate it with the duces tecum, which survives in active use and carries a distinct modern meaning. Bouvier's explicitly redirects readers from Dus to Subpoena Duces Tecum, reflecting this practical convergence, but the two writs served different purposes: Dus compelled the bodily production of a prisoner despite illness; the subpoena duces tecum compels attendance with documents.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter Dus only in pre-modern English and early American common law sources. Its practical life ended well before systematic legal reporting made it a living instrument, so it appears almost exclusively in dictionaries, abridgments, and treatises rather than in reported case law. The term is a reliable signal that a source predates or recounts early common law practice, and its presence in a text can help date or characterize that source.
The writ's relationship to habeas corpus is the most substantively interesting thread for researchers. Burrill's entry clarifies that Dus operated as a habeas corpus variant — specifically the form known as habeas corpus cum causa or, in this context, the duces tecum licet languidus — invoked when the standard process failed because the sheriff pleaded the prisoner's dangerous illness. Understanding this lineage is useful for researchers tracing the historical breadth of habeas corpus practice and the many specialized writs that branched from it before procedural consolidation.
Because the writ's operative Latin phrase ("bring with you, although sick") closely parallels the language of the duces tecum ("bring with you"), the two are sometimes loosely grouped in historical secondary sources. Researchers should track the distinction carefully: Dus addresses the body of a sick prisoner; duces tecum addresses documents and evidence.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Bouvier's, and Burrill's are in close agreement on the substance: all three define Dus as an obsolete writ directed to a sheriff upon a return of the prisoner's dangerous illness, and all three note it is no longer in use. Burrill's provides the most complete procedural context, identifying the underlying habeas corpus form and the precise Latin condition — adeo languidus (so sick) — that triggered the writ. Bouvier's is the most practically oriented, pointing readers directly to Subpoena Duces Tecum as the relevant surviving instrument.
None of the three sources provide reported cases applying the writ, which is consistent with its obsolescence predating systematic law reporting. Blount and Cowell, the older authorities cited by Burrill's and Bouvier's, are the primary historical sources; researchers wanting primary documentation should consult those lexicons rather than expecting case law support.
The secondary citation in Burrill's to Kelham under the Law French sense — "Duke" — is an oddity worth noting. It suggests the term may have carried a separate Law French sense unrelated to the Latin writ, though no dictionary entry develops this meaning. Researchers encountering "Dus" in Law French contexts should treat it as potentially distinct from the Latin writ definition.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See: Habeas Corpus; Subpoena Duces Tecum