Definition
A writ of execution, originating in English law, by which a judgment creditor could satisfy a debt out of the debtor's goods and, if those proved insufficient, out of one half (a moiety) of the debtor's lands. The writ took its name from the Latin "he has chosen," reflecting that its use was optional — the plaintiff elected to pursue this remedy rather than other available writs of execution.
Under the writ, the sheriff was directed to deliver to the plaintiff the defendant's goods and chattels (with an exception historically carved out for beasts of the plough) appraised at a fair value. If the goods were insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the plaintiff received possession of a moiety of the defendant's freehold lands, to hold until the debt and damages were satisfied from rents and profits, or until the defendant's interest expired. During this period of possession the plaintiff was called a "tenant by elegit," and the land did not pass in ownership — it functioned as a form of sequestration.
The elegit was created by the Statute of Westminster II (13 Edw. I, c. 18, 1285) and remained part of English law, in modified forms, for centuries before being largely superseded by modern statutory judgment enforcement mechanisms.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "A judicial writ ordering seizure of a debtor's property."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "A judicial writ of execution, by which a defendant's goods are appraised and delivered to the plaintiff, and, if not sufficient to satisfy the debt, all of his lands are delivered, to be held till the debt is paid by the rents and profits, or until the defendant's interest has expired."
Editorial note: The Webster's definition introduces a notable inaccuracy: it refers to "all of his lands" rather than a moiety (one half). This is a meaningful error — the elegit historically extended only to a moiety of freehold lands, not the whole. Researchers relying on Webster's for a quick gloss risk misunderstanding the precise scope of the writ. The Wiktionary entry is accurate but too compressed to convey the writ's distinctive mechanism, particularly the "tenancy by elegit" that it created.
---
Common Confusion
The elegit is one of three classical common-law writs of execution and is frequently confused with the fieri facias (fi. fa.) and the levari facias. The distinction matters: a fi. fa. authorized the sheriff to seize and sell the debtor's personal property; a levari facias reached rents and profits of land directly; the elegit uniquely gave the creditor possessory occupation of a moiety of the land itself, making the creditor a tenant rather than a mere recipient of proceeds. The election between elegit and fi. fa. was the plaintiff's choice — hence the name — and the two writs could not ordinarily run simultaneously against the same property.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The elegit is an extinct or near-extinct writ in modern practice, which means researchers encounter it almost exclusively in historical sources — English case law through the nineteenth century, early American equity and common law decisions, and treatises on real property and judgment liens. Several research traps are worth noting.
First, the tenancy by elegit created a recognized property interest in land. This means the elegit appears not only in procedural sources on execution but also in property law materials dealing with leaseholds, priorities, and the rights of subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers. A researcher tracing the history of judgment liens against real property will cross into elegit territory whether or not the writ is the primary subject of inquiry.
Second, American reception of the elegit was uneven. Some early American jurisdictions adopted it; others replaced it by statute almost immediately after independence. By the mid-nineteenth century most American states had statutory judgment lien systems that rendered the elegit obsolete, but the case law from transitional periods may still reference elegit principles when construing the scope of those statutes.
Third, the phrase "tenant by elegit" carries specific doctrinal content and appears in real property treatises as a recognized tenure category. Researchers working in Blackstone, Coke, or later commentators should recognize it as a term of art describing a creditor in possessory occupation under the writ, not a conventional leaseholder.
Fourth, the corpus distinction between the writ as procedure and the tenancy as property right means the term will appear in different taxonomic locations across Law Mind sources — procedural treatises, real property digests, and equity materials all contain relevant entries.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries converge on the writ's origin in Westminster II and its basic mechanics, but vary in precision and completeness.
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the most technically careful entry among the sources, correctly specifying the moiety limitation and the exception for beasts of the plough — details that matter for understanding the writ's practical scope. Burrill's treatment of the possessory character of the remedy (the plaintiff holds land for rents and profits rather than acquiring title) reflects the doctrinal significance of the tenancy by elegit.
Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) reproduces substantially the same text and correctly identifies the plaintiff's election as the source of the name, though the entries are truncated in the source material provided. The first and second editions do not diverge meaningfully on this entry, suggesting the writ's definition was well settled by the time Black's was compiled — which is consistent with its historical rather than living status.
Anderson's Dictionary of Law offers no independent entry, cross-referencing only to the general treatment of writs of execution. This is a common Anderson's pattern for archaic procedural terms and signals to the researcher that Anderson's is not the right source for elegit depth.
Rapalje & Lawrence's fragment in the source material relates to election of remedies generally rather than the writ specifically, which underscores that "elegit" and "election" share a conceptual family even if the writ is the narrower legal instrument.
What the historical dictionaries collectively omit: they do not address the writ's abolition or supersession by statute, its reception history in American jurisdictions, or the specific doctrinal rules governing the priority of a tenant by elegit against other claimants to the land. Researchers needing that level of detail will need to move from the dictionaries into treatises and case reporters.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The elegit was an English common law writ and had limited and inconsistent reception in American jurisdictions. Most American states replaced writ-based judgment enforcement with statutory systems during the nineteenth century, making the elegit of historical rather than practical significance in U.S. law. English law abolished the writ by statute (Judgments Act 1838 and subsequent legislation progressively displaced it). Researchers should not assume any modern jurisdiction retains the writ in operative form without specific verification.
---