ET INDE PRODUCIT SECTAM

Definition

A Latin formulaic phrase meaning "and thereupon he produces suit" (or, in the looser rendering shared by Bouvier and Black, "and thereupon he brings suit"). Et inde producit sectam was the standard closing formula appended to a plaintiff's declaration in common law pleading. Its function was to signal that the plaintiff had formally produced before the court the witnesses or followers — his secta — whose testimony was understood, under ancient practice, to confirm the allegations set out in the declaration. By the time the phrase was codified in the classical treatises, its substantive meaning had largely collapsed into pure formality: the words remained as a ritual conclusion to pleading documents even after the underlying requirement of producing live secta had long ceased to be enforced in practice. The phrase did not appear in every declaration. By Blackstone's account, it was the standard conclusion except in actions brought against attorneys and other officers of the court, who were subject to a different procedural regime. ---

Common Confusion

Researchers sometimes read producit sectam as a reference to the plaintiff producing his lawsuit — that is, filing or presenting his legal action — and treat the phrase as equivalent to a simple statement of commencement. This is an understandable reading but historically imprecise. The sectam referred to is the secta, a specific institution of early common law: the train of witnesses or compurgators whom a plaintiff was obligated to bring to court to lend weight to his claim. The phrase encodes the memory of that procedural obligation even though, by the period of classical common law pleading, the secta had become a fiction. The phrase should therefore be understood as a historical survival, not as a live procedural command. ---

Why It Matters in Research

This term is almost exclusively a research artifact — it will appear in primary sources (manuscript and printed declarations, plea rolls, and form books) and in treatises on common law pleading, not in modern legal materials. Researchers encountering it in historical documents should treat it as a formulaic terminus to a declaration rather than as a substantive pleading element requiring independent analysis. The key navigational point is that the phrase encodes two distinct historical layers. The first is the archaic practice of the secta, traceable through Bracton and the earliest common law authorities, in which the plaintiff's production of followers had genuine evidentiary weight. The second is the long period — spanning most of the classical common law era — during which the formula survived as boilerplate after the underlying practice had dissolved. Burrill's entry is the only one among the shelf sources that captures both layers clearly; Bouvier and Black simply provide the translation and the Blackstone reference without explaining the secta institution at all. Researchers working in early plea roll materials or studying the transition from archaic to classical common law pleading will need to understand the secta to make sense of why this phrase appears. Those working with later printed declaration forms need only recognize it as a conventional closing tag carrying no independent legal weight. The exception noted by Blackstone — that the phrase did not conclude declarations against attorneys and court officers — reflects a distinct procedural track for those parties and may be relevant when studying the history of professional regulation or the special pleading rules applicable to officers of the court. ---

Historical Dictionary Support

The three shelf sources agree on the core translation and the Blackstonian reference (3 Bl. Comm. 295) but diverge significantly in depth. Burrill provides the most historically grounded entry, connecting the formula explicitly to the institution of the secta and citing Bracton (214b, 410a) and Stephen's Pleading, and correctly characterizing the phrase as surviving from "a very early period." This is the entry that gives the researcher real purchase on why the phrase exists and what it originally meant. Bouvier and Black offer nearly identical entries — both giving only the translation "and thereupon he brings suit" and the Blackstone citation. Neither explains the secta, and neither notes that the formula had become purely formal by the classical period. Black's slight variation ("he brings" versus Bouvier's same formulation) reflects no substantive difference. A notable gap shared by all three sources: none explains that the secta in this context is distinct from the later procedural sense of "suit" as a legal action, which is precisely the confusion most likely to mislead a modern researcher. Burrill comes closest to addressing it by using the fuller translation "he produces suit" and glossing secta as "suit or followers," but the gloss is compressed. Researchers relying solely on Bouvier or Black risk misreading the phrase entirely. ---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Common Law Pleading; Secta; Declaration (Common Law) ---

Related Terms