Definition
Et habeas ibi tunc hoc breve is a Latin phrase of procedural command used in common law writs, translated literally as "and have you then there this writ." It appears as the closing formula directing the officer to whom a writ is addressed — typically a sheriff — to return the writ itself to the court at the time and place specified for the return, along with whatever response, certification, or compliance the writ required.
The phrase functioned as a mandatory instruction completing the writ's structure: having commanded action in the body of the instrument, the court closed by ordering the officer to bring the writ back on the return date as proof of service and compliance. It was not surplusage — the phrase constituted the formal return clause, and its presence distinguished a returnable writ from one with no return obligation.
---
Common Confusion
The phrase is sometimes loosely rendered as "et habeas ibi tunc hoo breve" in transcription, which reflects a scribal or typographical corruption of hoc (Latin: "this," neuter accusative) into the phonetic approximation "hoo." Researchers encountering "hoo breve" in older printed sources or handwritten copies should treat it as equivalent to hoc breve. The substantive meaning is unchanged; the variation is purely orthographic.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase matters primarily as a paleographic and structural marker in historical writ research. Researchers working with original writ forms, Year Books, or early English and American common law records should recognize it as the closing return clause and use it diagnostically:
First, its presence confirms that a writ was returnable — that is, the officer was required to bring it back to court with a formal return indicating what action was taken. Its absence or modification can signal an original writ (as opposed to a judicial writ), or a writ that had been adapted for non-standard purposes.
Second, the phrase survived into the modern period. Black's 2nd Edition notes that the literal translation is retained in the modern form of a considerable number of writs, meaning researchers encountering this language in 19th-century American practice forms are not necessarily looking at archaic material. It was a living formula well into the era of code pleading reform.
Third, the "hoo" variant noted above is a real transcription trap. Researchers using full-text search across digitized sources should run both "hoc breve" and "hoo breve" to avoid missing instances corrupted in copying or early printing. Manuscript sources compound this risk, as medieval scribal abbreviation of hoc could be rendered inconsistently.
Fourth, the phrase indexes to a broader network of Latin writ-closing formulas — et non omittas, teste meipso, in cuius rei testimonium, and others — that structured writ practice. Understanding its function helps decode adjacent formulas that may appear in the same document.
Corpus researchers working in Law Mind materials on writs, process, and pre-pleading-reform civil procedure should treat this phrase as a return-clause signal. If a writ closes with this formula, the associated document likely has a sheriff's return, endorsement, or filing record worth locating.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Edition) provides the primary authority: the phrase means "and have you then there this writ" and constitutes the formal words directing the return of a writ, with Black's noting that the literal translation survives in modern writ forms. This is a compact but sufficient entry — Black's is describing a formulaic phrase, not a substantive doctrine, so brevity is appropriate.
No substantive divergence exists across historical sources on the meaning of this phrase. The translation is uncontested. What historical dictionaries do not address is the orthographic instability of the phrase (particularly the hoc/hoo variation) or the precise procedural consequences of omitting or altering the return clause — gaps that require reference to treatises on writ practice, such as Tidd's Practice or Gould on Pleading, rather than legal dictionaries.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The phrase originates in English common law writ practice and carried over into early American courts that adopted English forms. Its practical use diminished sharply as code pleading replaced common law writ practice across American jurisdictions during the 19th century. Researchers in English legal history will encounter it throughout the Year Books and into the modern period; American researchers are most likely to encounter it in pre-code practice forms and judicial records predating procedural reform in the relevant state.
---