Definition
Escheccum is a term from old English law with two recorded meanings:
1. A jury or inquisition. In this sense, escheccum referred to a formal body convened to inquire into a matter of legal consequence — most commonly the determination of whether lands or goods had escheated to the Crown.
2. By contextual association in historical sources, the term appears alongside the office of escheator and the administrative machinery of escheat proceedings, suggesting it could describe the formal inquisition process by which an escheator certified findings to the Exchequer.
The term is obsolete. It has no modern legal application and survives only in historical legal texts and abridgments.
Common Confusion
Escheccum is easily conflated with escheat (the substantive doctrine by which property reverts to the Crown or state) and escheator (the officer charged with administering that process). The three terms are related but distinct: escheat is the legal event or right; escheator is the officer; escheccum is the inquisitorial body or proceeding through which the escheator's findings were formally established. Historical sources do not always maintain clean boundaries between these terms, and researchers should treat them as overlapping rather than interchangeable.
Why It Matters in Research
Escheccum is a research trap precisely because it is so rarely defined on its own terms. Historical abridgments treat it as subsidiary to the escheator entry, and the Black's Law Dictionary entries split its two meanings across separate paragraphs without explicitly tying them together. A researcher encountering the word in a medieval or early modern English record may not recognize it as referring to a jury or inquisition unless they already know to look.
The term appears in the context of Exchequer proceedings and escheat administration. If you are working through Viner's Abridgment (10 Vin. Abr. 158) or Coke on Littleton (Co. Litt. 136/130, with a minor discrepancy between the first and second editions of Black's on the precise folio citation), you are in the right primary source neighborhood. Those references anchor the escheator entry, and escheccum is embedded within that surrounding material.
The discrepancy between Black's 1st and 2nd editions on the Coke folio reference (136 versus 130) is worth flagging: researchers relying on one edition should verify the citation independently against the primary source rather than assuming uniformity across dictionary editions.
Because the office of escheator had ceased to exist by the time Black's was compiled, and because escheccum itself had long been defunct, later editions of legal dictionaries offer diminishing guidance. The 2nd edition of Black's adds the phrase "to certify the same into the exchequer," which clarifies the procedural function but does not substantially change the substantive definition.
Researchers in English legal history dealing with feudal tenure, forfeiture, or Crown revenue administration will encounter escheat proceedings most heavily in records from the twelfth through seventeenth centuries. Escheccum as a term is most likely to appear in Latin legal records, writs, or inquisition post mortem documentation from that period.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both 1st and 2nd editions) is the primary modern reference source for this term, and both editions treat it briefly. The core definition — a jury or inquisition — is consistent across editions. The 2nd edition provides marginally more context by embedding the definition within a fuller account of escheator procedure, linking the inquisition function to the requirement of certification into the Exchequer.
Neither edition provides a standalone, developed entry for escheccum. Both editions present it as a subordinate element of the escheator discussion, which limits the analytical depth available from dictionary sources alone. Brown (cited in both editions without a full title, likely referring to a legal dictionary or abridgment by that name) is referenced but not quoted. Researchers needing authoritative treatment beyond the dictionary gloss should consult the Viner and Coke references directly.
No Webster's or general-language dictionary coverage exists for this term. It is pure legal Latin with no common-language counterpart.
Jurisdictional Note
Escheccum is a term of English law exclusively. It has no recognized counterpart in American, Scottish, or other common law traditions. Researchers working in American legal history will encounter escheat doctrine in a different administrative and terminological register entirely.